Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY

Bank of England

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received urging him to make the Bank of England fully independent of Her Majesty's Government. [33405]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Waldegrave): The Chancellor has received no such representations recently.

Mr. Brown: In view of that reply, and as the Government have been so successful in reducing interest rates and inflation over the past few years, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is absolutely no need whatsoever for an independent central bank in this country? Further, will he confirm that we are not legally obliged—under our opt-out—to become part of the central banking system of the treaty on European Union under stage 2 of economic and monetary union?

Mr. Waldegrave: On the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I confirm that he is right.
However, on the former part of my hon. Friend's question, I agree with the Governor of the Bank of England, who said that the present framework gives us a better chance of price stability than at any other time in his professional lifetime. Under the joint leadership of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and the Governor, to whom I pay tribute, that has been delivered.

Mr. Betts: The Chancellor has previously said to the House that he does not believe that there will be any constitutional implications as a result of the creation of a single currency. Will the Chief Secretary tell the House whether the transfer of powers from the Government and from the House to an independent European central bank is not a significant constitutional change?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is odd for the Labour party to lead on this particular matter. The right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)—who, I take it, has gone to Scotland to try to find out what his party's policy is on devolution—recently said:
The Treasury rather than the Bank of England must continue to set the targets for monetary policy as well as fiscal policy.

However, at the same time, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) went to Germany. I presume that he was correctly reported by one of the German newspapers under the headline
The pound can go, says Blair, as he cuddles up to Kohl.
The question is really for Labour Front Benchers.

Sir Terence Higgins: Will the Government resist arty claims that are made for an independent central bank? I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on his recent decision to reduce interest rates, which has been completely vindicated by events. Will he consider a further reduction, combined with explanations to the public—particularly to pensioners and to those on fixed incomes—that, although nominal rates have been cut, real rates and returns on savings are far higher than they ever were, when under a Labour Government they were negative?

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right—he remembers that clearly and accurately. What is more, the 20 per cent. rate of tax for savings has, in particular, helped pensioners with savings. My right hon. Friend is right: the Chancellor judged the situation correctly, to the great benefit of the country.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is there not an inconsistency in the Government's position of denying the right of a group of central bankers in London to set interest rates but, as the Chancellor acknowledged in Florence, maintaining that Britain could be a founder member of the monetary union? If that were the case, interest rates would be set by a group of central bankers in Frankfurt. Where is the logic in those two positions?

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said, quite correctly, that, because of his management of the economy, Britain could be in a position to take that decision, if it chose to do so. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we can make that decision freely at the appropriate time. The real confusion lies not among the Liberal Democrats—who have always been consistent—but in the Labour party.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows that one of the real bosses of the Labour party, Mr. John Monks, said recently that it will be the Leader of the Opposition's "destiny" to sign up for the single currency. That is the signal that the Labour party is giving to Europe, but it is not the signal that it is giving to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). If, by any mischance, the Labour party gets into power, the hon. Member for Bolsover will be in Opposition then, as he is in Opposition now.

Ministerial Visits (Harborough)

Mr. Garnier: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next intends to visit Harborough to discuss the effects of his economic policies on the local economy. [33406]

The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans to visit Harborough. However, my hon. Friend's constituency is benefiting from the general


strength of the British economy, with the longest run of low inflation for almost 50 years, steady economic growth and the lowest unemployment figures of any major European country.

Mr. Garnier: On his way to Harborough—I advise him to visit soon—will my right hon. Friend look at the speech by the president of the German BDI, in which he noted that unemployment levels in this country have fallen by 20 per cent. since their height in the 1980s while unemployment in western Germany has increased by 10 per cent. in the same period?

Madam Speaker: Order. The House requires that the supplementary question should follow the substantive question, which in this case is about a visit to Harborough and its local economy.

Mr. Garnier: Precisely, Madam Speaker. When my right hon. Friend visits Harborough to discuss the Government's economic policies, will he draw to the attention of my constituents the quotations from the speech to which I have referred? If my constituents do not know it already, will he remind them that investors from both within and outside the United Kingdom are queuing up to do business and to set up businesses in my constituency? Following his visit to Harborough, will my right hon. Friend draw the appropriate conclusions from the information that he gathers there, for the benefit of the Opposition?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I would love to visit my hon. and learned Friend's constituency. His constituents obviously have a good understanding of the reasons why unemployment has fallen steadily in that area and elsewhere in the past few years. As my hon. and learned Friend hints, it is typical of new Labour that it is about to embrace the German employment pattern at a time when the flaws and deficiencies in that system are beginning to appear. There are now more Germans out of work than at any time since the second world war, whereas unemployment is falling in this country.

Inflation

Mr. Booth: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the role of his inflation target in securing sustainable growth. [33407]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): The inflation target of 2½ per cent. or less is set to deliver permanently low inflation, which is vital for delivering sustainable growth.

Mr. Booth: As those under 50 in this country who pay attention to such things are applauding the fact that, for the first time in their lives, inflation is at its lowest level—2.2 per cent.—and as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is applauding low inflation around the world, is it not odd that almost me only group that is not applauding the success of our inflation target is those on the Labour Front Benches? Could it be that Labour is the party of high inflation?

Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend makes a good point about low inflation and the fact that this country is enjoying a long spell of low inflation which brings stability to individuals and companies and helps to create jobs. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's point about the Labour party. We all know that the Opposition have a vested interest in running down the economy and this country. When Labour was in charge, inflation soared.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: The Exchequer will be aware that all the water and sewerage companies have produced their results for this year. They total £1.8 billion, which is four times the rate of inflation. How can that be fair in an industry which has increased its prices to customers above the rate of inflation every year since privatisation?

Mrs. Knight: The hon. Lady's dislike of privatisation is well known. I remind her that, when her party was in charge and when it was running the then nationalised companies, those companies cost the taxpayer more than £50 million a week. Those companies now contribute £50 million a week to the public purse. They are providing a better service for customers and water industry companies have contributed much-needed investment.

Taxation (Small Businesses)

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for alleviating taxation on small businesses. [33408]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): The last Budget included plans to reduce further the tax burdens on small business.

Mr. Bellingham: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that our corporation tax is among the lowest in the world and in welcoming the Government's recent announcement about reducing rates on small businesses in rural areas? Does he agree that small businesses do not want extra bureaucracy and extra regulation—particularly that which would flow from adopting the social chapter and other social legislation from Europe? [Interruption.] Does that not illustrate the fact that the Labour party cannot be trusted when it comes to small businesses?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend takes entirely the right line. The noises from the Opposition Benches show that Opposition Members completely distrust private enterprise and lack any understanding of it. Indeed, most of them have had no experience of operating in it.

Mr. Hain: Given the fact that the VAT registration threshold has not been raised in line with inflation, is the Minister happy that another 14,000 businesses have been forced into the VAT net?

Mr. Jack: Many small businesses are pleased that we have increased the threshold for VAT. That has relieved them of unnecessary bureaucracy and has expanded their opportunities to be competitive in the marketplace.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate for VAT income for (a) the current financial year and (b) each of the previous two financial years; and if he will make a statement.[33409]

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: VAT receipts for 1994–95 and 1995–96 were £41.8 billion and £43.1 billion respectively. The latest published forecast for 1996–97 is £47.9 billion.

Mr. Greenway: I welcome the rising trend announced by my right hon. Friend. Does it not compare favourably with the dismal stories put about by the dismal Johnnies in the Labour and Liberal parties—stories about declining economic activity and falling VAT receipts? Do not the figures reflect a more buoyant economy and augur well for a more cheerful future when tax cuts may in due course be made for everyone?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. The strong and buoyant figures for consumer expenditure are feeding through into higher VAT receipts. When my right hon. and learned Friend comes back from Lyon, he will no doubt read about my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for tax cuts.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Although I welcome the increase in VAT takings and realise that money talks, will the Minister undertake to review VAT on specialist equipment for the blind-deaf, so that they can play a fuller part in a society in which they are so often isolated?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that equipment specially adapted for disabled people is zero rated—but we keep these matters under review and his comments will have been noted.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Although I am glad that VAT receipts are rising, will my right hon. Friend confirm that they are still a relatively small proportion of total tax receipts? Is he aware that in Social Democrat Sweden the VAT rate is 22 per cent., and it is on everything?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. Not only do the Swedes have a much higher standard rate but they do not have our zero rates, so their tax system is a great deal more regressive than the United Kingdom's.

Ms Primarolo: Will the Minister confirm that he is considering introducing a statutory limit of six years on the refund of VAT campaigns? Will he confirm that he is doing so to prevent a haemorrhage of public funds and repayments, to close the gap on avoidance schemes which is opening up and to try to shore up the weak public finances that are undermining the Government's ability to do anything positive in the public sector?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In answer to the original question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), I announced that VAT receipts over the past few months have been extremely buoyant. For April and May, they are 12 and 15 per cent. higher, respectively, than a year ago. So I do not understand how the hon. Lady can refer to a haemorrhaging of national finances. If she is saying that the Opposition are against stopping

loopholes and avoidance schemes, that too is a most interesting announcement by an Opposition Front Bencher.

Interest Rates

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy for interest rates. [33410]

Mr. Waldegrave: Interest rates are set to achieve the inflation target of 2½ per cent. or less.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that low interest rates and low inflation are the prerequisites for any successful economy? Will he further agree that both conditions are currently in place, which is probably why the British economy is outperforming our principal competitors in Europe? Would he care to say what would happen to the economy if the policies of the Opposition, especially the social chapter, were implemented?

Mr. Waldegrave: To quote Aneurin Bevan, we do not need to look in the crystal ball, we can read the book in relation to the Opposition's policies. When they were running the economy, they achieved 27 per cent. inflation. When the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported on Britain in 1979, among its many criticisms of our economy was the fact that inflation was rising to 11 per cent. again. In its report this year, it says that the
United Kingdom has … become a more flexible and less inflation prone economy.
That is the achievement that we must maintain against the Opposition's damaging policies.

Mr. Sheldon: I welcome the reduction in interest rates and offer my congratulations to the Chancellor on his relationship with the Governor of the Bank of England, which is a pretty suitable one at present; but will he bear it in mind that the amount of research and development has declined during the past few months, a serious aspect, and that plant and machinery expenditure needs to be much higher? To deal with the shortcomings of the Government's economic policy, particular attention must be given to some form of capital allowances for plant and machinery in particular.

Mr. Waldegrave: One of the most satisfactory features of the last period—indeed, since 1979—has been the increase in the efficiency of capital investment, which is increasing faster in Britain than in other countries. It is also very satisfactory that in the last recession Britain did not cut its investment or its research and development as much as in previous recessions. Those are both good signs for the long-term health of the economy.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a great triumph for Conservative policy that interest rates are now at a historic 30-year low? Will my right hon. Friend contrast that with the position in Germany, where industrialists are making it clear that they now realise that Germany's commitment to the social chapter is costing it hundreds of thousands of jobs? The leader of


the Labour party, in his recent visit to Germany's BDI, the convention of German industry, made it clear that he was still committed to the social chapter. His views are the views of failed old Germany's social democratic socialism.

Mr. Waldegrave: It was indeed a comic scene when the Leader of the Opposition, having gone to Germany to tell the German Chancellor that he would sign up to everything in Europe, then had to listen to a speech by Mr. Heinkel—during which, I believe, he made his excuses and left—in which Mr. Heinkel paid warm tributes to the British economy. It would have been better if the Leader of the Opposition had stayed and listened.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Does not interest rate policy depend critically on sound public finances? As the Chancellor has admitted that there was a mistake in his Budget calculation of tax revenues, as this year's borrowing races ahead of the Government's forecast, and as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) warns in an article in Public Finance tomorrow that the Government have borrowed an extra £100,000 million during the past three years, is it not high time that the Chief Secretary quantified the mistake that was made in the Budget forecast, came clean with the House and started to tell us the true state of the public finances, and accepted the case that Labour has put forward for an independent audit of the books before the Budget in November?

Mr. Waldegrave: It will do the hon. Gentleman a great deal of good to learn economics from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham. I am glad that he is reading his articles with attention. They are a very different kind of economics from those that he used to believe in. It will do him good to read my right hon. Friend's speeches. If the hon. Gentleman wants to look at public finances, he should first explain why, under the Labour Government—the only thing by which we can judge him—in every year on average, public borrowing was higher than it has been under the Conservative Government.

Mr. Olner: My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford. East (Mr. Smith) was at school then.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman was indeed at school, learning the wrong economics which I am now glad to find that he is correcting by reading my right hon. Friend's speeches.

Taxation

Mr. Thomason: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his objectives in the field of taxation; and if he will make a statement. [33411]

Mr. Jack: We aim to reduce the basic rate of income tax to 20p in the pound and abolish capital gains tax and inheritance tax. The Chancellor will make progress towards these objectives when it is prudent and sensible to do so.

Mr. Thomason: I congratulate my hon. Friend on that answer, which is good news for current taxpayers and taxpayers for many years ahead. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has no proposals for hidden taxes and that

he does not have anything up his sleeve, unlike the Labour party, which has so many proposals up its sleeve that it can hardly get its arm in it?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend rightly reminds us that the Opposition are trying to fix their policies, as usual—a state of division and divide. He is right about hidden taxes. We have no plans for a tartan tax, teenage tax, European jobs tax, car tax or a windfall tax. What are dangerous are the taxes that we can see coming, on the successful and the enterprising: the higher-rate taxes proposed for those who earn a little more than £30,000.

Mr. Winnick: Why does the Minister believe, like the rest of his ministerial colleagues, that a tax bribe before the next election will do the trick for them, when the large majority of people are paying a greater percentage in taxes than they were in 1979? That is a dismal failure, and it is unlikely that the electorate will forget it when the election comes.

Mr. Jack: That really is rich coming from the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of a party that disguised its own tax burden on the British people by borrowing so much money—to the equivalent of another 10p on the basic rate of tax. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is not in the business of playing fast and loose with the British economy. He made our position about future tax reductions absolutely clear in his Mansion house speech, and I commend that excellent text to the hon. Gentleman.

Inflation

Mr. Amess: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his estimate of the rate of inflation for the remainder of 1996–97. [33412]

Mrs. Angela Knight: In the previous Budget, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor forecast that underlying inflation would fall from 2¾ per cent. in the second quarter of 1996 to 2¼ per cent. by the second quarter of 1997. I remain confident that we are on course to meet our inflation target of 2½ per cent. or less.

Mr. Amess: In the light of that reply, does my hon. Friend agree that the rate of inflation still matters very much? Does she further agree that, if the Government were unwise enough to adopt the policies proposed by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, this country's trading position and its economic prospects generally would be fatally damaged?

Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend is quite correct. Indeed, his analysis points out the terrible policies that the Labour party has on the economy, as indeed it has on so many other aspects of British life. He might be interested to know that the average rate of inflation when Labour was in control was just over 15 per cent., which meant that the average supermarket bill for an ordinary family rose by nearly £1,300 in two years. Those are the disgraceful consequences of the Labour party's absence of policy on inflation, as it is on every other aspect of the economy.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that that inflation figure was achieved by taxing the average British family by an extra £2,000 a year? Do not most British families think that that taxation policy is hurting, that it is unfair and that it is not working?

Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman always fails to recognise how much better off people are in this country now when we have run the economy so well. He also likes to deny that the average family will be some £450 better off this year. Our economy is growing when the economies of many other countries have stalled. Our economy is creating jobs; unemployment is rising elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman should congratulate the Government rather than always trying to run the country down.

Non-EU Countries

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will initiate studies on the relative economic performance of west European nations that have decided, after referendums, not to join the EU. [33414]

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The country to which my hon. Friend refers is Norway, which decided not to join the European Union after a referendum. We have not conducted the study that my hon. Friend describes.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Should not the Chancellor of the Exchequer be genuinely alarmed that, in the European Union, almost 20 million people are unemployed—more than 11 per cent.—and rising; that in Britain, partly because of his natural brilliance, of which he is well aware, and also because we were chucked out of the exchange rate mechanism, unemployment is around 8 per cent.; and in Norway, which voted no against all the advice from the experts who said that it had to join to save jobs, unemployment is 4.5 per cent. and falling? Is that not a certain indication that further Euro-integration is simply a recipe for mass unemployment and despair? When will the Government wake up?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Like Norway, this country has a good record on falling unemployment. Like Norway, we are determined not to catch the continental disease of tying up our labour market with regulations and red tape to such an extent that competitiveness and unemployment rises.

Mr. Skinner: What on earth possessed the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say the other day that Britain ought to be one of the first countries to join a European single currency? Do the Government not realise the madness of the exchange rate mechanism? The last time this Tory Government tried to shadow the mark, the last Chancellor and the Prime Minister together lost £10 billion in an afternoon, and never went near a betting shop.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman has described Labour party policy on monetary union fairly accurately, but—not for the first time—he has not quoted my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor accurately. What is true is that this country would be among the first to qualify for monetary union under the

convergence criteria, if we chose to do so. That gives us the advantage of being able to choose from a position of strength whether to take the enterprise any further.

Retail Prices Index

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which prices of which goods are monitored for the retail prices index. [33415]

Mrs. Angela Knight: The prices of over 600 representative goods and services are monitored each month to compile the retail prices index. For example, a variety of vegetables, such as peppers, are in the index. Details of the items are published each year in "Retail Prices Index Business Monitor".

Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Will she thank and congratulate whoever included the red pepper in the retail prices index? It reminds us of Labour every single day, because it is bitter and twisted.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the red pepper ever returned to power via that lot opposite, with inflation at 26.9 per cent., it would not be long before members of the Transport and General Workers Union refused to collect rubbish in Leicester square? We would have rats as big as cats running around there. Moreover, members of the TGWU would not be prepared to dig graves, and we would not be able to bury our loved ones. Is that not what Labour is all about, always has been and always will be?

Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend has put the case extremely well. Let me mention a couple of other things that would happen if the red pepper party, alias the Labour party, ever came to power. What would happen is exactly what has happened in the past: savings and pensions would be wiped out, unemployment would rise, companies would leave the country and the United Kingdom's competitiveness would fall.

Mr. Connarty: Is it not true that the current inflation rate has been reached through the crushing of the consumer expectations and hopes of the British people by adding £2,000 per annum to the average tax bill of a British family? Is it not also true that, in re-estimating the level of inflation, the Chancellor should re-estimate the level of the public sector borrowing requirement, which is expected to be £5 billion higher than his original estimate, and was £10 billion more last year than he had estimated? Is it not true that the national debt now amounts to £380 billion, having increased to that level over the past five years? We are storing up massive inflation for the British people.

Mrs. Knight: I always find it extraordinary when the hon. Gentleman is so cavalier about some of the successes of our economy. I remind him—as I shall no doubt do on many occasions—that, in the past 17 years, people have become considerably better off. They have more goods at home than they had in the past, and they will be £450 better off in the coming year. We have brought down the borrowing requirement. When we look at the list, which country do we find has the lowest mortgage rate for 30 years, which has the lowest basic rate of tax for over 50 years, which has lower unemployment than any other major European country and which has had the longest


period of low inflation for 50 years? Which country is number one in Europe for foreign investment? The answer is this country, under a Conservative Government.

Economy

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the findings of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on the state of the British economy. [33416]

Mr. Waldegrave: The recent OECD report on the British economy confirmed and endorsed the success of the Government's economic policies across a broad front. The OECD expects the economy to continue growing at a healthy rate, with low inflation and falling unemployment.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to evaluate the OECD report of 1979, and has he compared that with the report this year? Does not such a comparison show that in the intervening 17 years of Conservative Government, almost every economic indicator has improved substantially? Have not living standards improved substantially in that time? Is it not self-evident that if living standards are to double in the next 25 years, as is the Prime Minister's wish, we must have a Conservative Government for the next 25 years?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No one would have dared to make such a well-founded pledge, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has, in 1979 when, as the report shows, the economy was in collapse. You would rebuke me, Madam Speaker, if I read much of the report, but I remind the House that the OECD said:
By the end of 1978, British external competitiveness was at its worst level since 1966"—
another Labour year—whereas now, international cost competitiveness remains sound. That is the fundamental truth.

Mr. Gapes: Can the Minister confirm that in 1979 approximately half the number of people were out of work than is the case today? Can he confirm that five years ago, the work force in this country was 26 million, but that today, it is only 25 million?

Mr. Waldegrave: There are more people in work now than there were then—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I believe that that is correct; I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if I am not correct. Much more fundamental is the point that the economies on the continent of Europe that have followed the advice of the hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench colleagues since 1979 have had a far worse unemployment record during those difficult years than we have. That is the point. What matters is the future. Who is better now? We are better than the social democrat countries. Who will be better in future? The Conservative answer brings low unemployment; the Opposition's brings high unemployment.

Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the key factors in the improvement in the competitiveness of the British economy has been the success in controlling inflation? Does he also agree that

that success would be put at risk if we allowed wage rates to rise by caving in to disputes in the public sector, whether in the Post Office or on the tube, or if we introduced a minimum wage which would put up employers' costs and feed through into inflation? Would it not be a disaster to let either of those things occur?

Mr. Waldegrave: The 1979 report described truthfully the disastrous state of British labour relations. The Labour party should be called on clearly to condemn today's unnecessary strike on the underground system because sensible mediation is on offer from the employers. I suspect that it will not do so because many Labour Members are sponsored by the relevant unions.

Mr. Darling: Given that the OECD has said that the British Government's deficit is the second highest in the G7, has the Chief Secretary any confidence that the Government will meet their borrowing target this year, when they have missed the target in each of the past four years?

Mr. Waldegrave: The public sector borrowing requirement is on a steady downward trend; there is nothing wrong with the public finances of this country. The hon. Gentleman would have a greater right to criticise if at any time in the past few years he had given an opinion on whether tax should be higher or lower and on whether interest rates should be higher or lower, or if he had given any other opinion on the management of the economy. The right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who is unable to be with us today because of Scottish problems, has never given advice on those issues.

Government Spending

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest percentage target for cuts in overall Government spending for the financial year 1997–98. [33417]

Mr. Waldegrave: Our plans are to hold overall public expenditure in 1997–98 at the same level in real terms as it was in 1995–96. The Government's target is to reduce general Government expenditure as a share of national income to below 40 per cent., and to reduce it further if possible.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend note that defence expenditure is a lower proportion of general expenditure than it has been previously? Has he studied the defence White Paper which shows that, in real terms, expenditure on defence for the three years from now will remain more or less constant? Those figures are based on an underspend last year of £500 million and, therefore, represent cuts. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the Treasury regards the defence of the realm as the first duty of any Government? Will he ensure that funds are made available to our overstretched armed forces to improve recruiting and to give them the equipment they require to carry out their extremely difficult task?

Mr. Waldegrave: I pay tribute to the way in which the armed forces and my right hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence have reshaped the forces after the end of the cold


war to ensure that that first duty is properly met. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that no Conservative Government will take risks in that area.

Mr. Soley: What estimate has the Minister made of the increased spending required for bovine spongiform encephalopathy payments?

Mr. Waldegrave: The best estimate that I can give the hon. Gentleman on BSE is that additional spending this year will be around £1 billion, gross spending over the next three years might be around £2.5 billion, or around £2 billion net of predictable receipts from the European Union.

Interest Rates

Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the effect on the average mortgage payment of recent reductions in interest rates. [33418]

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The cuts in mortgage rates over the past year will leave the average mortgage payer about £400 a year better off.

Sir Michael Shersby: Does my hon. Friend agree that average mortgage payments are now about £107 a month lower than they were in October 1990—even allowing for mortgage interest relief at source—that the affordability index is now excellent, particularly for first-time buyers and that there is strong evidence that they are coming back into the market in large numbers?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, my hon. Friend is spot on. House prices are relatively low compared with average earnings, so property is a good buy. Meanwhile, the four interest rates cuts since the Budget have been followed by mortgage interest reductions. That is good news for millions of borrowers and has helped to continue the steady increase that is fully sustainable in house prices.

Mr. Chisholm: In spite of the fact that our interest rates are higher than those in any G7 country apart from Italy and that the City expects interest rates to rise in the next year, is it not the case that interest rates have not fallen in order to help mortgage payers, but because of fundamental weaknesses in the economy with manufacturing in recession and manufacturing investment in decline?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman may be disappointed that the British economy is now performing extremely well by international and historic standards. Mortgage interest rates are now below 7 per cent.—the lowest level for about 30 years—compared with a rate of more than 11 per cent. under the last Labour Government.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his success in reducing interest rates? Does he agree that that is best achieved by applying a national monetary policy to national economic conditions and making sure that we have a balanced economic framework to produce the best outlook for a generation?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree that it is an impressive achievement in monetary policy. My hon. Friend also knows that we have no immediate plans to transfer monetary policy to anyone other than the Treasury.

Manufacturing Output

Mr. Rooker: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fiscal proposals he has to stimulate manufacturing output. [33419]

Mr. Jack: All businesses will benefit from the tax cuts in the Budget and the four interest rates cuts announced since last December.

Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister accept that Britain should be first and foremost a manufacturing nation? Notwithstanding contributions to the economy from other sectors, is it not a tragedy that our manufacturing base contributes less to the economy than financial services? Is it not the case that although manufacturing industry does not exist to create jobs, it must create wealth and we are slipping too far behind?

Mr. Jack: In reply to the hon. Gentleman's first question—what a contemptuous statement on all those who work in the City, banking and other financial institutions and who generate so much of our invisible wealth. However, I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for manufacturing industry. It is a pity that he did not mention Rockwell Light Vehicle Systems which has invested £7.9 million in the west midlands, Everset Frozen Food, an American company which has invested £28 million there and Mann and Hummel, a company that makes air filters, which has invested £13 million in the west midlands. Nor did he mention the 58 German companies fleeing the social chapter to invest in manufacturing in the best place in Europe to make things.

Mr. Forman: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not so much special fiscal measures, but the right overall economic climate, with low interest rates, low inflation and minimum regulation that is necessary to support our manufacturing?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The flexibilities in the British labour force and the excellence and strength of our economic policies have made us attractive and the number one place for inward investment in Europe.

Venture Capital

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the Coopers and Lybrand report on the venture capital industry. [33420]

Mr. Jack: The report finds that the United Kingdom venture capital industry is the largest in Europe and has made an important contribution to the growth of most of the venture-backed firms surveyed.

Mr. Dykes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government have given very strong psychological support to venture capital companies, the trust and systems and


that the companies promoted under those systems have shown astonishingly above average growth in comparison with general indices?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The venture capital trust that the Government have backed has taken £150 million and the enterprise investment scheme is prospering. The British venture capital trust recently commissioned a report from Coopers and Lybrand that showed that over the four years from 1990 to 1995, sales of venture capital-backed companies had risen by 34 per cent.—five times faster than the FTSE 100 companies. That shows the tremendous response of those venture capital companies.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June. [33395]

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the G7 summit in Lyons.

Mr. McFall: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Scotland's recent statement that, if the Scottish people endorse a Scottish Parliament in a referendum, no future Conservative Government would abolish it? Will the Deputy Prime Minister give a commitment on that?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's view of Labour's policy in Scotland, but that was yesterday's statement. Labour's policy in Scotland is a shambles. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, when campaigning for the Labour leadership in 1994, said:
I believe firmly that we should legislate in our first year for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament.
Just the other day, Labour's Scottish spokesman said:
We have no proposals for a referendum because we want to legislate early and quickly for this outstanding commitment, and that is clear party policy.
Now what have we got? Without consulting the Scottish Labour party, the parliamentary Labour party or most of the Shadow Cabinet, the Labour leader has panicked. He has sold out his promises to Scotland at the first whiff of anxiety in middle England. It is called policy making by focus group. I can well remember Labour running Britain with beer and sandwiches in Downing street, but running Scotland over pasta and Chianti in Islington is quite another thing.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June. [33396]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a side effect of such a policy which would anger the people of Kent, who would find themselves with a regional Government run from Guildford on the other side of London? Is he also aware that the people of Kent and those in the other English regions would be fed up with more politicians, bureaucrats and taxes imposed on them?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I can allay my hon. Friend's anxieties because the next Government have no plans to introduce regional assemblies.

Mr. Rooker: Can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister about Government policy, which will give him time to calm down? Will he confirm today's reports that the Treasury has told the Ministry of Defence that cuts of £1.6 billion in defence equipment will be required this year if the sell-off of married quarters is blocked? Does that not show that the purpose of the sales has nothing to do with the good of service personnel, but is simply a short-term fix for the Government's finances? Is it true that service families could be required to move against their will for non-military reasons so that an estate can be parcelled up for sale as a whole?

The Deputy Prime Minister: May I, in the time-honoured courtesy of the House, welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box in the absence of any member of the shadow Cabinet prepared to come here today? [Interruption.] Again, following the time-honoured courtesies of the House, may I say to the deputy leader of the Labour party—who has sadly had an accident to his leg and has received excellent treatment under the NHS—"Come back soon, John. We know it's hurting, but we know it's working" [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The deputy Prime Minister has a question to answer.

The Deputy Prime Minister: Madam Speaker, that is a timely reminder of the reason why I am standing here. The hon. Gentleman and his party are keen on a fundamental defence review—we do that every year.

Mr. Rooker: Madam Speaker, I know that I am new at this, but I thought that the Deputy Prime Minister was paid a lot more than I am to answer questions. We are dealing with real people, such as the RAF officer's wife—now widowed—who moved for military reasons eight times in two and a half years, and a British Army colonel with distinguished service in Bosnia who moved 23 times in 23 years for military reasons. They did that because they had the comfort of knowing that suitable quarters would be available at the right time and in the right place. Has the deputy Prime Minister not received the letter from the Secretary of State for Defence to hon. Members today, which states that 
too many homes are in poor condition"?
Does not the promised £100 million to upgrade the married quarters amount to less than £2,000 a dwelling, compared with the average housing renovation grant in England of £10,000? Will the Government now heed the call from the Army's Families Federation and the Royal British Legion that the proposed sale of married quarters be postponed, pending a detailed review in this House?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I notice that the hon. Gentleman has just told the House that £100 million-worth of renovation is not adequate for the task. No wonder the shadow Chancellor is not in the House to hear him make that observation. Everyone who enters service life knows that, as a condition of service, they may be expected to move as part of their obligations as members of Her Majesty's armed services.

Mr. Couchman: Does my right hon. Friend think that the education reforms announced this week will help to raise education standards in Islington to a point where the Leader of the Opposition no longer feels it necessary to send his children out of the borough and across London every day?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes the critical point. Labour controls most of the education authorities in this country and if it had the first idea how to raise standards, it would not be calling on the Government to do it—it would get on and do it

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June. [33397]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marshall: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the real Prime Minister that it is all right to offer Northern Ireland devolution with a Secretary of State in the United Kingdom Cabinet and no reduction in the numbers of Members of Parliament at Westminster, but not all right to do the same for Scotland? Does he not understand that offering devolution to Northern Ireland while denying it to Scotland is a gross insult to the people of Scotland?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman can go and try to persuade the Scottish people that they want the ability to have taxes raised by a Scottish Assembly—that they want a tartan tax. If he can persuade them of that, doubtless the referendum will produce the result that the Labour party wants. But the fact of the matter is, as I said to the House earlier, that the Labour party's policies on devolution are now a shambles.

Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend, as a fellow Celt, reaffirm his commitment to the Union of the United Kingdom? Does he agree with me that the policies of the Labour party will destroy the Union of the United Kingdom?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question. Nothing shows more obviously the cynical nature of the Labour party's policies than that it has different approaches for Wales and for Scotland.

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June. [33398]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. O'Brien: Has the Deputy Prime Minister seen the survey of the regions carried out by his Government, which reveals that the wealth of people in the United Kingdom is falling further behind that of people in other European countries? Has he seen that in Yorkshire crime is higher, deaths in the first year after birth are higher, 50 per cent. of women employed are in part-time jobs—that is more than anywhere else—and truancy in secondary schools is greater than anywhere else? This is the record of 17 years of Tory Government. What is he going to do about it?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should take the trouble to look at the base source of years on which that report is based. The fact is that those were 1993 figures. If the hon. Gentleman looked at the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures he would find that our economy was forecast to grow faster than any other European economy this year and next year, that we have the fastest increase in employment, the highest proportion of our people in work and an 800,000 reduction in unemployment. The Conservative party in power will preserve the competitive edge of the United Kingdom, which means that 40 per cent. of all inward investment into Europe comes into the United Kingdom.

Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend assure me as an Englishman representing an English constituency that, should a Labour Government ever offer a referendum to Scotland, he will campaign for a referendum in England on whether those Labour Members of Parliament should retain their votes in the Westminster Parliament?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that the answer to that question will have to come from the party that is proposing so divisive a proposal for the United Kingdom. Labour Members of Parliament will have to answer the question first raised by the then hon. Member for West Lothian, now the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who has not yet received an answer because there is no answer. The question is why Scottish Members of Parliament should have powers in Scotland as well as powers in England which would be denied to English Members of Parliament in respect of Scotland.

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June. [33399]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Mullin: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that last night's European football championship, watched by 28 million people, could be the last to be available on independent television or the BBC? What plans does he have to prevent Mr. Murdoch's pay television from


kidnapping major sporting events in the future? Or is this another case of the party that promises more choice, delivering less?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I did not need to fly 13,000 miles across the world to try to ingratiate myself with Rupert Murdoch. If I may address the substance of the issue, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Premier League recently entered into a contract under which some £700 million will be injected into the sport, in addition to the remarkable benefits from the lottery in support of sport—all created by the present party in Government as a result of the creation of independent television and the establishment of the lottery. The Labour party should recognise that under this Prime Minister more has been done for sport than by any Government since the end of the war.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend condemn the disruption on London Transport today, which inconvenienced thousands of my constituents and hundreds of thousands of Londoners? Will he compare that disruption with the positive policy of the Government of upgrading the Northern line, extending the Jubilee line, building the Heathrow to Paddington link and improving the docklands light railway?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I unreservedly condemn those who put the public to such inconvenience. I would welcome the support of the Labour party for that condemnation, but I know perfectly well that I will not

get it because a significant number of Labour Members are sponsored by the unions that caused the trouble in the first place.

Mr. Clapham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June. [33401]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clapham: The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State for Social Security in 1993 tried to add a sweetener to the bitter pill of the Deputy Prime Minister's colliery closure programme by introducing awards for miners who were suffering from chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Later, it proved that the diagnosis criteria were too restrictive and the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council has carried out a further study that was reported to the Secretary of State for Social Security earlier this year. I understand that he has accepted its recommendations but nothing has yet been done. Will the Deputy Prime Minister try to ensure that those recommendations are implemented before Parliament rises for the summer because elderly miners in my constituency and throughout the country are dying of dust?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I will consider that point as a matter of urgency.

Business of the House

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Leader of the House set out the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business of the House for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 1 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Broadcasting Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 2 JULY—Completion of remaining stages of the Broadcasting Bill [Lords].
Motion relating to the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance and Claims and Payments) (Amendment) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 3 JULY—Until 2 o'clock there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Proceedings on the Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill.
Proceedings on the Social Security (Overpayments) Bill.
THURSDAY 4 JULY—Until about 7 o'clock motions on the Structural and Boundary Change Orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 5 JULY—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 JULY—Remaining stages of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order and the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY 9 JULY—Opposition Day [18th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Motions relating to the Occupational Pension Schemes Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 10 JULY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Education (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 11 JULY—It is expected that there will be debates on motions for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 12 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 3 July, there will be a debate on European water policy in European Standing Committee A.
The House may also wish to know that it is proposed that on Wednesday 10 July there will be a debate on maritime policy in European Standing Committee A and a debate on the EC budget and the financial perspective in European Standing Committee B.
Subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the summer recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 25 July and return on Monday 14 October.

[Wednesday 4 July: European Standing Committee A—European Community Documents: a) 8600/94; Ecological Quality of Water. b) 5939/96; EC Water Policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports a) HC 70-ii (1994–95) and HC 48-xxvi (1993–94). b) HC 51-xvii (1995–96).] Wednesday 10 July: European Standing Committee A—European Community Document: 6813/96; Maritime Policy. Relevant European Committee Report HC 51-xxi (1995–96). European Standing Committee B—European Community Documents: a) COM(96)300; EC Preliminary Draft Budget for 1997. b) 6431/96 + COR 1; Financial Perspective. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports a) HC 51-xxiii (1995–96). b) HC 51-xix (1995–96) and HC 51-xxii (1995–96).]

THURSDAY 4 JULY—Motions on the Structural and Boundary Change Orders. The relevant orders are as follows:

The Cambridgeshire (City of Peterborough) (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996; The Lancashire (Boroughs of Blackburn and Blackpool) (Structural Change) Order 1996; The Nottinghamshire (City of Nottingham) (Structural Change) Order 1996; The Cheshire (Boroughs of Hahon and Warrington) (Structural Change) Order 1996; The Devon (City of Plymouth and Borough of Torbay) (Structural Change) Order 1996; The Essex (Boroughs of Colchester, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock and District of Tendring) (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996; The Hereford and Worcester (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996; The Kent (Borough of Gillingham and City of Rochester upon Medway) (Structural Change) Order 1996; The Shropshire (District of the Wrekin) (Structural Change) Order 1996; The Berkshire (Structural Change) Order 1996.

TUESDAY 9 JULY—Occupational Pension Schemes Regulations.

The relevant regulations are as follows:

The Occupational Pension Schemes (Pensions Compensation Board Limit on Borrowing) Regulations 1996; The Occupational Pension Schemes (Mixed Benefit Contracted-out Schemes) regulations 1996; The Occupational Pension Schemes (Requirement to Obtain Audited Accounts and a Statement from the Auditor) Regulations 1996; The Occupational Pension Schemes (Member-Nominated Trustees and Directors) Regulations 1996.]

Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for again giving as nearly as possible two full weeks of business. His statement has obviated the need for one of my questions. The school holidays started yesterday in Scotland and it is important for hon. Members' families to know the recess dates.
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange an early debate on data protection in view of the decision yesterday by the British Medical Association that general practitioners should not sign up to the proposed NHS data network? There is obvious concern that too many people other than doctors will gain access to confidential reports about patients. There are reports that the Government have resisted the British Medical Association's suggestions on ways to protect sensitive information. We believe that patients are entitled to know that their medical records are secure from anyone who wants to probe on the network, whether employers, banks or insurance companies.
In view of the Deputy Prime Minister's ignorant—I was going to say inadequate—response to the points relating to married quarters, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on early-day motion 1040?
[That this House notes that the Government proposes to sell all Ministry of Defence married quarters in England and Wales, including those occupied by service families as well as empty properties, to developers; further notes that this will leave service tenants dependent on a declining number of properties leased back for 25 years; notes that most of the properties can be exchanged by the developer with a neutral arbitrator, rather than the tenants or the Ministry of Defence, deciding whether or not exchanges are permitted; notes that the arbitrator will have to base his decision on set criteria which are vaguely worded, so that developers with expert legal advice will be able progressively to cream off the best estates; notes that steep rises in rents and the downward ratchet on the number of homes leased back, embodied in the proposed scheme, will progressively reduce and break up married quarter estates; notes that, especially at a time of overstretch, and poor recruiting and retention these estates play a vital role in maintaining the morale of service families and the maintenance of the regimental system; and calls on the Government to dispose of surplus estates, to provide homes for civilian families but, before selling any estate with service tenants, to consult the tenants on the estate, to report to Parliament on the outcome of the consultation and to table an affirmative resolution in both Houses.]
Such a debate would enable hon. Members on both sides of the House to put service families' concerns to the Government across the Floor of the House before their houses are sold over them.
If reports are correct that, before the recess, a White Paper is to be published on the legal aid service which is purported to be the biggest shake-up in its 46-year history, the relevant Minister should make a statement in the House so that hon. Members can check on the price of justice for their constituents.

Mr. Newton: I have no plans for a debate on data protection, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. There is probably disappointment in some quarters of the House that we are not rising earlier than I have announced today, and I cannot envisage the possibility of too many more debates unless the hon. Gentleman wishes to press to be here into August.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Ministry of Defence married quarters. I do not accept that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's answers were inadequate. I say clearly—as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on Tuesday at Prime Ministers questions—that is it the Government's belief and firm intention that the sale will improve the quality and management of service housing to the benefit of those about whom the hon. Gentleman is concerned.
We expect and intend to publish a White Paper on legal aid, and I note the hon. Gentleman's request for a statement.
Finally, in the spirit of the approaching holiday season, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his work rate this afternoon.

Mr. Tim Renton: I should like to press my right hon. Friend for one more debate before the recess. Has he seen early-day motion 953?
[That this House deplores the steep decline in serious reporting and analysis of politics and current affairs in the United Kingdom; notes that this decline has gathered pace in recent times, with increasing emphasis on personalities rather than policies, and on trivia rather than substance; notes the growing contrast both with the past in British journalism and with certain high quality daily newspapers in other countries; and suggests that the editors of those national papers that aim to contribute significantly to opinion-forming should demonstrate a more serious and less personal approach, and seek to achieve more balanced coverage and comment in relation to public issues and political development.]
It is signed by 54 hon. Members from both sides of the House and calls attention to the steep decline in the serious reporting and analysis of politics and current affairs in the United Kingdom. It calls on the editors of the high-quality daily newspapers to seek to achieve more balanced coverage and comment in relation to public issues and policy development.
The competition among the broadsheets, between the broadsheets and the tabloids, and between the broadsheets and television and radio seems bound to continue. As the subject concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House, will my right hon. Friend find time as the Broadcasting Bill nears its conclusion for a debate on the subject in the House? In the dog days as we near the summer holidays, it seems appropriate that a debate on the issue should be led by that guardian of the media's probity, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.

Mr. Newton: The two days' debate on the Broadcasting Bill next week may provide my right hon. Friend and others with an opportunity to make their point. I entirely accept that it is a serious one and his remarks will have struck a chord in various parts of the House. On a lighter note, quite apart from the difficulties of organising further debates for the reasons that I have mentioned, I would hesitate to provide time for a debate when, according to what my right hon. Friend has said, it would not even be reported.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on nurses' pay in view of the report published by the Royal College of Nursing on 17 June, referred to in early-day motion 1018, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)?
[That this House notes the report, Broken Promises, on the state of local pay in the nursing profession, published on J 7th June by the Royal College of Nursing; notes the report's findings that only 111 out of 488 NHS trusts have made pay offers to nurses above the 2 per cent. national pay award; notes that this has demoralised many nurses and done nothing to allay the problems of recruitment which the NHS currently faces; notes that many nurses have lost all confidence in the independence of the Pay Review Body; calls for a single national pay review body-far the whole NHS to remove the inequalities in consideration of pay rises between professions and occupations in the health service; and further calls for an annual increase in nurses' pay by at least the level of national inflation.]


Nurses feel aggrieved that the Government's predictions that awards would be topped up have not materialised. Does the Leader of the House agree that that is a matter for real concern and that the Government should explain to the House their response to the position reported by the Royal College of Nursing?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has asked his question courteously and, in the same spirit, I will draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The hon. Gentleman requested a debate, but the House spent all day yesterday debating the health service. If the Liberal Democrats had not been able to make that point in yesterday's debate, I would have been surprised.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Am I right to infer from what my right hon. Friend said that when we come back on 14 October, it will be to complete the unfinished business of this Session? If I am right, when will we have the state opening of the new Session?

Mr. Newton: I cannot go so far as to give the date that my hon. Friend has requested, but I can certainly confirm that we shall come back on 14 October to complete the business of the present Session.

Mr. David Winnick: Given the Prime Minister's record of luck, will we have an opportunity next week to ask him not to declare his preferences publicly when an important event like yesterday's takes place? If he had not, we might have stood a better chance of winning.

Mr. Newton: I can only imagine what would have happened had the Prime Minister, or any of us, said anything other than England when asked whom we wanted to win.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend go further and agree to a debate on Euro 96 so that we can congratulate the England team on a splendid performance in every possible way?

Mr. Newton: That sounds like a genuinely good idea and, even if I cannot provide a debate, I am happy to join in the good wishes and congratulations expressed to the England team for the way in which it has performed throughout the competition.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his answer on NHS records? He will be aware that if any member of NHS staff discloses patient details, he or she is subject to immediate disciplinary action and to dismissal. It would be the ultimate horror if it were possible for a clever computer hack to gain access to the intimate details of patients' records. Unless the Government can assure us that that will not happen and unless the Secretary of State will confirm that in the House, doctors and patient record controllers in the health service must give a guarantee to their patients that they will not put details on to the NHS computer.

Mr. Newton: I see no need to reconsider my earlier answer, not least because it did not say anything. I merely said that I would draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to the observations that have been made and, of course, I will also draw his attention to the hon. Lady's observations.

Mr. Peter Viggers: May I join the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) in urging the Leader of the House to allow an early debate on the Government's proposals for Ministry of Defence housing? Is not it clear that many hon. Members suffer from a serious misapprehension about the Government's intentions? Those of us who have studied the subject in detail have been completely convinced about the Government's determination to improve housing for service personnel and that the present proposals will do that. A debate would enable those facts to be made clear.

Mr. Newton: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who probably knows as much about these matters as any Member of the House and whose opinion on them is well respected. I hope that what he said will be taken carefully into account by those who have made different points.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Reference has already been made to the issue of MOD housing in which I have a constituency interest. Is the Leader of the House aware of the great interest in the decisions on defence procurement that must be taken soon, not least of which is the decision on the replacement for the Nimrod, which is based in my constituency at RAF Kinloss, and the replacement of the radar system for the search-and-rescue Sea King helicopters? Can he assure us that the Secretary of State for Defence will make an announcement on the decisions clearly and publicly in the House and not through a planted question?

Mr. Newton: I shall bring the hon. Lady's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend. I draw her attention to the fact that Defence Questions will take place on Tuesday 9 July. I am well aware of the level of interest in these matters, as my constituency contains a significant number of people who work in defence-related industries.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House agree to an urgent early debate on the nature of our constitution and the proposals for constitutional reform? People who seek to destroy our constitution do so at their peril, and they do so for reasons of gimmickry, not principles of genuine reform.

Mr. Newton: I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks, and I shall bear in mind his request for a debate on this matter—even though it may not be possible to arrange one before the summer recess.

Ms Joan Walley: The Leader of the House was in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) referred to the chronic bronchitis and emphysema regulations for former miners. Will he give us an assurance that there will be an early debate on this issue before the summer recess so that the


recommendations of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which I believe have been accepted, can be fully implemented?

Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said a few moments ago, except to say that I too—not least in my capacity as a business manager—will be making inquiries about the point that was raised. Obviously, I have a close interest in this matter, as I was the Minister responsible for the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council and related issues for many years.

Mr. John Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend give us his best estimate of the day on which we will debate the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body in relation to the pay of Members of Parliament? Does he agree with me that he should—as Leader of the House, in his all-party mode—seek to negotiate assurances from the leaders of all the parties in the House that there will be a genuinely free vote and that none of them will seek to take party advantage from the debate?

Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's points, but I cannot give him the date on which the debate will take place. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expects to receive the Senior Salaries Review Body's report later today and, of course, the Government wish to consider its recommendations carefully. We are aiming to publish the report on 4 July—the date on which we will also make known the Government's views. Today, I will write to the leaders of the other parties on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is absent in Lyon. I will send them a copy of the report and offer them the opportunity to comment to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister before it and our views are published.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will have heard the Deputy Prime Minister give an assurance that an incoming Conservative Government would not introduce assemblies in Scotland or in Wales. Will the Government begin to govern Northern Ireland at the same level as they are governing the rest of the United Kingdom? I have pressed for a meeting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee for a long time. This week, a decision was taken by the Northern Ireland Office to scrap two education boards, against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Newton: I shall focus on the hon. Gentleman's request for a meeting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee which, as I have said before, is under active consideration. Provided that we are sure that arrangements can be made that are acceptable to all parties in Northern Ireland, we will be happy to arrange for that. I hope that we will be able to do so before the summer recess.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week on early-day motion 1053, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher)?
That this House notes with sadness that for the first time in its history the TUC is led by a General Secretary who through his advocacy of early entry into EMU is prepared

to connive at an increase in unemployment, particularly in the manufacturing and traded goods sectors; regrets that the General Secretary is prepared to serve the interests of a European political elite at the expense of British and European trades unionists and other workers; and calls on the TUC to sack the General Secretary for his betrayal of his members' interests and lack of intellectual rigour in examining the pros and cons of EMU.]
It regrets that the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress proposes the return of Britain to the EMU in the immediate future. Is it not a shame to see—yet again, as in the days of old—the General Secretary of the TUC advocating policies that would damage the employment of his members in the manufacturing sector, purely so that he can follow the misguided policies of the Leader of the Labour party?

Mr. Newton: The answer to my hon. Friend is yes.

Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate about the adequacy of the current voluntary agreement between the Government and the tobacco industry in light of some serious breaches of that code? On 3 August the Gallagher tobacco company will stage a rave dance event in Nottingham as part of the Renaissance Silk Cut tour. It openly advocates smoking and it will give away free cigarettes to the young people who attend the event. I wrote to the Minister in May complaining about the company's activities and I was appalled to receive a reply recently saying that the Government propose to take no action against that flagrant disregard of the terms of the agreement. The House should debate whether, in light of the Government's inaction, the voluntary agreement is an adequate means of pursuing a reduction in cigarette smoking among young people.

Mr. Newton: I will bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. John Marshall: May we have an urgent debate on early-day motion 1016?
[That this House welcomes the initiative of Her Majesty's Government in appointing Sir David Hannay as their special representative for Cyprus; and wishes him all success in the achievement of a just solution of lasting benefit to all the citizens of the Republic of Cyprus whatever their ethnic origin.]
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the continued division of Cyprus is intolerable and that it is wrong that people should be denied the right to live in the houses and in the villages where their families have lived for generations? Many people welcome the appointment of Sir David Hannay and we hope that some action will be taken in the not too distant future.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend and of others expressed in the early-day motion regarding Sir David Hannay's appointment. The Government are determined to strengthen our efforts to help to secure a negotiated settlement in Cyprus.

Mr. David Alton: Like every other hon. Member, this morning the Leader of the House will have received from the hon. Member for


Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) a survey conducted by an organisation that is examining the connection between violence and the levels of violence transmitted on television. Included with the report is a letter from the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) urging hon. Members to support two new clauses to the Broadcasting Bill which are on the Order Paper and which we hope will be selected and debated on Monday. They represent modest attempts to monitor the level of television violence and to do something effective about it. Will the Leader of the House promise that he will consult his Cabinet colleagues over the weekend so that that all-party move might be facilitated without unnecessary controversy or delay when the matter is debated on Monday?

Mr. Newton: I take that to be a public representation in advance of next week to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. I shall ensure that she hears of it. I must acknowledge that I have not yet had time to study the material to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I reiterate the requests of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) for a debate on the sale of the married quarters estate? Would that not give us the opportunity to provide the assurances that people need in view of the anxieties that some in the House have whipped up unnecessarily in recent days? Would it not also expose the Opposition for what they are: a party that seeks a review of the policy but does not have a proper response to it?

Mr. Newton: That is more impressive support for the Government's position. My hon. Friend is my constituency neighbour and I know that he represents the important garrison town of Colchester.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we have a debate about ferry safety and particularly the dangers of the so-called roll-on/roll-over ferries? Is it not a disgrace that three quarters of our ferries are still as dangerous as the Herald of Free Enterprise and the Estonia? In that debate we could congratulate Norway, which has made safety improvements to all of its ferries. Why must we wait until 2002 before British ferries are protected in the same way?

Mr. Newton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might like to put that question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport when he is here on Monday 8 July.

Point of Order

Mr. Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 11 June I was wrongly named by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) in an early-day motion. I had to wait two or three days until it was eventually amended. In the meantime, the hon. Gentleman had persuaded 30 Conservative Members, including seven knights of the realm, to sign his EDM.
I am deeply concerned to find 45 such motions on the Order Paper attacking individual Members—representing 5 per cent. of all EDMs this Session.
Would you, Madam Speaker, use your good offices to persuade hon. Members to stop these personal attacks? And if they make mischief, as the hon. Member for Gravesham does, would you ask them to name the correct Member and have the courtesy to write a letter of apology? I have yet to receive one from the hon. Gentleman for his misdeed.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. This refers to early-day motion 981, which includes a quotation from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) in which he condemns the leader of his party, in the context of education policy, as saying, "Do as I say, not as I do."
I am at fault in that I thought the hon. Gentleman concerned represented Falkirk, East. Within two days it was pointed out to me that I actually meant the hon. Member for Falkirk, West; so I went to the Table Office and asked for the constituency to be corrected in the EDM. I also orally apologised to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) in—of all places—the Members' Cloakroom.

Madam Speaker: The least I expect of all Members of this House when they go into print, especially on the Order Paper, is that they do their homework first and know which Member they are attacking. In other words, they must get it right.
Secondly, I have a copy of the early-day motion in front of me. It was signed by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and 29 other Members. All I can say about those other Members is that they put their signature to the motion without knowing what they were signing. I deprecate that.
I also deprecate the personal attacks in these early-day motions and across the Floor of the House. Increasingly as we move towards a general election we are concerned with the policies of the parties in this House, not with individual Members or personal attacks on them.
I appeal to the House: when Members go into print, they should do their homework and get it right; and let us stop these personal attacks which I see daily on the Order Paper and which I deprecate.

ESTIMATES DAY

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY, 2ND PART]

ESTIMATES, 1996–97

Class II, Vote 1

The Commonwealth

[Relevant documents: The first Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1995–96, on the future role of the Commonwealth (House of Commons Paper No. 45-I), the Government's Observations thereon (Cm. 3303) and the Government's Expenditure Plans 1996–97 to 1998–99—Foreign and Commonwealth Office including Overseas Development Administration (Cm. 3203).]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a sum not exceeding £343,886,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on its salaries, building and other accommodation services, and administration and those of HM Diplomatic Service, official information services, sundry services and loans and payments in connection with catering services.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Mr. David Howell: The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs welcomes the opportunity of a brief debate on its recent report on the role of the Commonwealth. I should explain right away that we did not alight randomly on this subject for a report; we responded to what we felt was a strong steer, in the sense that opinion about the Commonwealth in this country may be undergoing a considerable change. There suddenly seems to be a new awareness of the value of the club of Commonwealth nations, vastly varied though their cultures and geography may be. They are spread around the entire planet.
There may be all sorts of reasons for that new awareness. The old issue that bedevilled all Commonwealth gatherings from the 1960s to the 1980s—the hated apartheid system in South Africa—has vanished, thank goodness. In part, the new interest may be due to the fact that several countries have joined or tried to join the Commonwealth in recent times. South Africa, of course, is a recent re-entrant, and Mozambique and Cameroon have also arrived in the team. A club that is growing and which people want to join cannot be entirely moribund.
Our studies seemed to suggest, however, that there was a harder and deeper reason for the British to think again about their Commonwealth connections. Contrary to many political utterances, sometimes of a rather pessimistic nature, and to the slant of a good deal of British foreign policy, Britain's trade and capital investment is noticeably tilting away exclusively from Europe and towards Asia, which happens to include several of the major Commonwealth countries, and Latin America.
It is the realisation that there is a shift in the centre of gravity of the entire planet, in political and economic terms, making areas of the world which we might have

felt we had cut our ties with and were not important, suddenly much more important to the present and the future, which makes us look at the Commonwealth through an entirely different lens.
Just to give hon. Members a flavour—I promise not to produce too many statistics, although there are some telling ones in the report—in 1994, 44 per cent. of Britain's total overseas earnings, visible and invisible, came from EU countries. That is obviously a significant chunk, so there could be no question of ignoring that. But during the past decade, some 80 per cent. of all British overseas investment, direct and portfolio, or so the estimates suggest, has gone outside Europe—about 40 per cent. to the United States and at least 20 per cent. to areas of the Commonwealth.
If one looks at the destination of our investment, some of which is recorded as going into Europe but which goes through the Netherlands and out again, the figures are even more striking. It could be—we have this figure in our report—that almost 30 per cent. of all our overseas investment is in the Commonwealth compared with about 13.9 per cent. in the EU. Those are our assets, our interests, and it is in our national interest to promote and strengthen those assets.
No one—I make this point clearly—or no one with a business or political nose or any sense of history is, I hope, arguing that Britain should disengage from Europe, although one hears the odd voice on those lines. Certainly, those figures do not lead to that conclusion. What they do is to cause us to question whether Europe, and western Europe in particular, is Britain's only interest, as some of our policies sometimes seem to suggest. National economic interest, in terms of looking after our assets and opening up new markets, now seems to pull us towards other regions as well.
It is arguable that Europe's sagging significance in the overall pattern of British business activity, or the relative reduction in its significance, is a reflection of the lower growth in Europe in recent years in contrast with the fact that there never was a recession in Asia; the growth simply continued right through the European and Atlantic recession years and produced an amazing recession-free performance.
But there are even longer-term influences at work than just those short-term movements in the business cycle. For instance, one of the brightest spots in Britain's strengthening economic relations in terms of capital flows, investment and expanded trade, visible and invisible, has been Australia. The media say that Australia is pulling away from the Commonwealth because it is thinking about a President rather than having Her Majesty the Queen as its Head of State—it has its reasons for that—but that has nothing to do with the reality.
The reality is that we are now closer to Australia, and to New Zealand as well—two of the world's most dynamic modem economies, not just dependent on agricultural products—than ever we were at the height of empire or in the days when the Commonwealth was called the British Commonwealth.
Another huge new market is emerging inside India. Admittedly, it is a vast area of high-income activity surrounded by a sea of poverty, but the numbers are gigantic. Another Commonwealth country that is becoming a major factor in the entire world economic system is Malaysia, despite our quarrels from time to time with that country's outspoken leader.
When I think about the G7 conference, which is just about to happen, it seems increasingly absurd that the emerging markets, as we call them, of three great countries, which will be heavyweights in the world economic order—India, China, which is obviously not in the Commonwealth, and Brazil, which is also not in the Commonwealth—are not included in the G7 summit. The days of the G7 summit complex may be coming to an end.
That is the background against which our report reaches its central and explicit conclusion that the Commonwealth is acquiring a new significance in a rapidly transforming world, and that British policy should bring that major change to the forefront of its thinking. Our report concluded that the Commonwealth of yesterday, still quite strong in British perceptions and in some quarters, has given way to something quite new and not yet fully appreciated.
In our report, we say that, far from being a "club" of countries all too ready to criticise and make demands on the former imperial power—that is us—the Commonwealth is rapidly metamorphosing into a network with quite different interests and ambitions. In particular, we pointed to the gigantic sub-governmental network of links that brings together the group of nations—there are now 53 of them—in a way that simply does not exist in any other corner of the earth. There are the regional blocs. We know all about Europe. There is the UN. We know all about that. But there is nothing to compare with this extraordinary network of intimacy that the Commonwealth today turns out to be.
In our inquiry, we encountered two disappointments. We were struck, first, by the rather cautious and downbeat initial memorandum from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Although it was very helpful and provided many papers, its initial memorandum was a bit faint, although we were happy to note that the evidence that Ministers subsequently gave the Committee sounded a much more positive note. Secondly, we were struck by the absolute disinterest and incomprehension about these matters in the daily newspapers. The so-called "heavies" seemed to have lost the capacity to handle and evaluate new concepts and ideas of this kind. They have squeezed out the wiser and more reflective writers in favour of the trivia masters and the superficial political commentators.
We were disappointed but not surprised that the British dailies paid no attention to the recent report. We were also pleased that—by strong contrast—some of the weeklies and the excellent BBC World Service understood the importance of what we were trying to say and supported strongly the thought that the Commonwealth matters increasingly. That was very welcome, but the report's conclusions lead us to more than mere thoughts. We recommended something much stronger: a whole new strategy to reinforce bilateral Commonwealth ties, to sustain the overall Commonwealth organisation and to deploy the advantages that Commonwealth membership gives us far more systematically, both in diplomatic endeavours and in the furtherance of Britain's worldwide commercial interests.
To anyone who suggested that we propose some great new bureaucratic layer in the Commonwealth, I would reply that that is not what we say at all in the report. We do not want to impose additional administrative structures on an international network, which has emerged of its own accord and which is emerging even further while we speak. In our view, the secretariat does a good job and

makes a significant contribution, but we are talking about the bilateral ties and the need within our own national administration, and certainly within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, for minds to be more focused than in the past on our Commonwealth role and the potential that it gives us—this is quite a cynical calculation—as a trading nation to develop our own interests.
In hard, practical terms, that means, as we recommend, greater readiness to speak up for the interests of our Commonwealth friends in the various forums of the world to which Britain belongs. We are a great "belonger" and club member. As Baroness Chalker, Minister for Overseas Development, reminded our Committee as a witness, we are the one country of the 15 in the Union that is also one of the 53, which gives us a leverage and a position that should be used more effectively.
Similarly, we expect our fellow Commonwealth members to speak up for us more effectively in the other great forums of the world that are increasingly significant in determining our future and prosperity—the Asia-Pacific economic forum structure and the Association of South-East Asian Nations. More focus also means giving renewed Government attention to the educational and cultural interchanges that used to characterise the Commonwealth and which must not be allowed to languish. In some instances, we were concerned that they were tending to languish. On the contrary, they should be fostered more energetically than ever.
In our report, we argue that that should apply particularly to instruments of promotion of Britain's interests and of diplomacy such as the BBC World Service, the British Council and the diplomatic wing of the Foreign Office itself. We are glad to note that—as a result, I hope, of some raising of voices in the Foreign Affairs Committee, and other pressures—the threat to the British Council's budget has been eased somewhat; but: it still seems that there has been a failure to convey to the policy makers just how much value and resource can be added to Britain's basic economic strength through the effective use of those agencies. As our report points out, at a time when they should be expanding, they are being cut back to a dismal extent.
According to evidence given to the Committee but not included in the report, the National Audit Office estimates that every pound spent by the diplomatic wing on reinforcing its posts in the emerging markets—including, as we discovered, many in Commonwealth countries—produces £80 in extra earnings for Britain. The Treasury's response has been to slice tens of millions of pounds off the diplomatic budget, and therefore billions off British overseas earnings and British potential. We are forced to conclude that any more of what the geniuses in the Treasury have called economies and savings will make life extremely expensive.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast,: I recently visited Japan with the Select Committee on Health, where I had first-hand evidence of the role played by the British Council, along with the embassy, in promoting British interests. Unfortunately, we received the same message: that the Treasury did not fully appreciate the importance of the investment and the responsibilities involved. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about our role in the Commonwealth as a whole.

Mr. Howell: What the hon. Gentleman has said confirms our impressions, although, as I said, the pressures on the British Council's budget have been eased, as a result—I hope that this will not embarrass my right hon. Friend the Minister—of some doughty fighting in the Foreign Office for the modern interests of this country, and for updating people's out-of-date views about what really matters when it comes to protecting and promoting those interests. The new focus for which we have called means recognising, in shaping our industrial and trade policies, that the interests and opportunities for British business now lie as much in the emerging markets—many, as I have said, in Commonwealth countries—as in the European markets that are geographically nearer to home.
Although our Committee divided into small groups, it covered a good deal of ground throughout the planet, visiting Commonwealth countries. A comment that we heard repeatedly was that Britain's Commonwealth connections, and the integration in a global network of communications and friendships that goes with them, were the envy of our trading competitors. Those competitors cannot understand why we, the British, have not exploited them to greater advantage. Here we are, at the centre of a gigantic system of world communications in which either Mandarin Chinese or English is being learnt—those will be the only languages left that matter to the entire commercial planetary business—yet we do not seem to have realised the full potential that lies before us, and the full possibilities of what could be a glittering global asset: the Commonwealth network. That network is ready made and inherited—perhaps through luck rather than good judgment, but it is there for us to use.
Perhaps it was understandable that, for a few decades after the end of empire, there would be a period of trauma and uncomfortable adjustment, and that people would feel that perhaps the Commonwealth was all to do with a better yesterday. However, it should never be forgotten that the unwinding of the British empire was, for the most part, an amazingly peaceful and constructive affair, despite one or two tragedies.
That era is over and so is its successor phase of decolonisation. In the closing words of our report, we state:
A new global pattern opens out in which the competition to maintain, let alone advance, living standards will be more intense than ever.
That is especially true of countries in Europe, as we are. The report continues:
In this new situation the United Kingdom has both friends and opportunities.
Who are those friends? They turn out to be our old friends who are also our new friends. They should be embraced, so that the British interest can be promoted in a firm and friendly way and so that the network of the Commonwealth, which is one of the most remarkable developments of the modern age, can be used to the benefit of all who live in it and, indeed, of all mankind.

Mr. Peter Shore: Our terms of reference in the study on the future role of the Commonwealth were extremely wide and included the implications for United Kingdom foreign policy. The study encompasses an enormous range of matters—

economic, cultural, educational, parliamentary and political—and the unique web of relationships that we have. There are 53 countries, including ourselves, in the Commonwealth, amounting to one quarter of mankind. It is an enormous connection.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, spoke effectively about our economic and trading relationships with the Commonwealth. They require—and will obtain—a new emphasis because, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, many of our Commonwealth partners are now engaged in the process of economic development, of a most spectacular kind in some cases. Malaysia has been mentioned. If, as we all hope, the Indian sub-continent, especially India itself, takes off, it will make a profound difference to the world economy. We have a strong interest in being part of that.
The right hon. Gentleman also very properly referred to our cultural and educational links with Commonwealth countries—which are of enormous benefit to us and, I hope, equally to them—in terms of our continuing understanding and our continuing influence on those who become part of the elite in the Commonwealth.
It is not possible to overemphasise the importance of the English language in the network of relationships. It is one of the two or three factors that continue to hold the Commonwealth together in a truly remarkable way. Whenever I visit the Indian sub-continent in particular—and this is almost 50 years after the ending of the Raj—I am able to converse in English not just with high officials, but with many people in quite humble spheres of life. That is impossible in any other part of the world except, increasingly, in the European Union, where English is becoming the lingua franca, if I can use that odd expression in this context. That is enormously helpful to us.
As the report is so wide ranging and as the right hon. Member for Guildford has spoken about trade, investment, cultural links, the World Service and the British Council, which play an important part, I shall concentrate on a subject of very great importance in our report, which reflects another of the major new developments in the Commonwealth.
Those who follow Commonwealth history will know that at the Harare Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 1991, the Commonwealth gave itself a new direction. It issued the following declaration:
We pledge the Commonwealth and our countries to work with renewed vigour, concentrating especially in the following areas: the protection and promotion of the fundamental political values of the Commonwealth; democracy, democratic processes and institutions which reflect national circumstances, the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, just and honest Government … human rights, including equal rights and opportunities for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief.
That declaration was unanimous and in one sentence it committed the Commonwealth and its 50-odd member states to democratic government and human rights.
In the period between the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare and that in Auckland, New Zealand, a few months ago, important and beneficial changes have occurred in the Governments of many Commonwealth countries. Malawi at last got rid of Dr. Hastings Banda; Zambia ended its long experience of one-party, one-President rule, as did Tanzania; and important progress continues to be made in Uganda.


Commonwealth election observers and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegations have been sent to a number of Commonwealth countries to witness general elections and report on their fairness or otherwise.
At this point, I pay tribute to the Commonwealth Secretariat. It is a small organisation, yet it is the Commonwealth's only continuing collective permanent organisation. It does a remarkably good job in sponsoring Commonwealth observer missions, advising on democratic practices in other Commonwealth countries as well as administering technical and aid programmes.
The House might be interested in the following figures, which I found shocking. In 1994–95, the total cost of the Commonwealth Secretariat—the Commonwealth's only continuing central organisation—including not only the secretariat, but the fund for technical co-operation, the science council and the youth programme, was £33 million. The British contribution was 30 per cent., or £10 million. The secretariat itself accounted for just under £9 million.
Perhaps I should remind the House that we pay a net contribution of £2,500 million a year for our membership of the European Union. We might reflect upon that figure in comparison with our ludicrously inadequate contribution to the Commonwealth organisation and the Commonwealth Secretariat.
Inevitably, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office distributes its resources similarly. We reported:
In numerical terms, out of a total of about 3,500 United Kingdom based staff, 87 staff within the FCO deal with Commonwealth issues, 80 in geographical and policy departments and seven in the Commonwealth Co-ordination Department.
That is not exactly a large investment of highly trained intellectual and diplomatic resources.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when I raised with the Foreign Office and Baroness Chalker my worry about the fact that, as European institutions become ever larger in Africa, the British contribution becomes smaller, I was told that I should not worry because, of course, it is all very nice and polite, and on the departure of the British assistant head of delegation—I was particularly talking about Lesotho—there would be an extra appointment of an agricultural adviser, who would work from the EU offices? Is my right hon. Friend at one with me in not being absolutely convinced that that is quite the same thing?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend illustrates the minuscule resources that, in recent years at any rate, we have been prepared to deploy.
I have emphasised the Harare declaration and the commitment to the promotion of democracy and human rights throughout Commonwealth countries. Last year, at the Heads of Government meeting in Auckland, the Commonwealth took major new steps to promote democracy and human rights, which were extremely significant and which have been quite inadequately reported.
First, the Commonwealth agreed to enhance the capacity of its secretariat to provide member Governments with advice, training and other forms of technical assistance in promoting the Commonwealth's fundamental political values, especially the democratic

process and procedure. Such enhancement of the Commonwealth Secretariat implies a certain strengthening, an investment, in the Commonwealth Secretariat here in Marlborough house.
Secondly, and very importantly, where the CHOGM—as it was called in Auckland—perceived that a member country was
clearly in violation of the Harare declaration and particularly in the event of an unconstitutional overthrow of a democratically elected Government",
it committed itself to take measures to encourage the restoration of democracy. Those measures range from the public expression of collective disapproval to a number of bilateral and multilateral sanctions by other Commonwealth countries.
Among the measures, of course, is suspension of Commonwealth membership—public denial of the rights of a Commonwealth member that has infringed the Harare declaration to take part in and attend other Commonwealth meetings. If the offending Government persist in violating the principles of the Harare declaration for more than two years, I think that there is the threat of complete expulsion. That measure is important and I shall illustrate it in connection with Nigeria, which is feeling the heat of ostracism by the Commonwealth.
Thirdly, the New Zealand Heads of Government conference agreed to establish the so-called Millbrook Commonwealth action programme, which is a committee consisting of Foreign Ministers from eight Commonwealth countries—I think that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), may be our representative on it—plus the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, to provide an implementing mechanism. So, not content with public meetings and yearly or two-yearly condemnations, an on-going committee of pretty senior members of the Commonwealth was set up to look at the carrying out of any recommendations made by the Heads of Government, continuing the pressure on those who have fallen short of the Commonwealth's standards of democracy and human rights.
Three Commonwealth countries were selected at Auckland for particular attention: Sierra Leone, Gambia and Nigeria, whose military regime was suspended from membership. Considerable pressure has been put on the Nigerian Government since then, but I am sorry that, only two days ago, the threat of immediate Commonwealth sanctions was dropped because of disagreement—I think—among the Millbrook group. I should be grateful to hear more from the Minister of State when he replies to the debate. It was disappointing that immediate action was not taken, because Nigeria's response so far has been inadequate.
The sanction package agreed at Auckland includes a ban on weapon exports to Nigeria, visa restrictions on members of the regime and their families, an end to sporting links and the withdrawal of education facilities. I understand that Britain and other EU countries operate most of those sanctions against Nigeria, but their impact would be greatly reinforced if the Commonwealth as a whole agreed to collective action. Canada will go ahead in any case and impose sanctions, and New Zealand is expected to follow suit. It is good to know—and I should be grateful if the Minister confirmed this—that sanctions will be back on the agenda at the Foreign Ministers'


meeting in September. If Nigeria has not made significant improvements in its human rights record and in its progress towards the restoration of democracy, I hope that sanctions will be imposed.
In our report, we urged the Government to take the lead in promoting democracy in the Commonwealth. We said that we would like to see a strengthening of the Harare declaration and, in particular, the specific recognition that real democracy entails the right to organise opposition parties and to remove existing Governments via a free and fair election. It would be helpful to have that on the record. With that in mind, I was disappointed that the Secretary of State's response to the report stated:
The Government is not persuaded that an attempt at this stage to amplify the Harare declaration, through incorporating more precise definitions of democracy, would be either acceptable to other Commonwealth governments or achievable.
I hope that that is only an interim response.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a real test of whether there is sustainable and substantial progress towards democracy—the existence of an opposition party—would be failed by a country such as Uganda? However, the current Government of that country are massively more credible and more democratic than their predecessors, and Uganda is clearly on the route to democracy, although without an opposition party.

Mr. Shore: I agree with my hon. Friend that the direction and pace of improvement away from non-democratic forms of government to properly democratic ones is important. It would be helpful to have a standard that could be accepted by all countries as to what it means to be a democracy and to safeguard human rights. Britain is hosting the next Heads of Government meeting in 1997 in Edinburgh, and I hope very much that we shall make the extension of democracy and human rights the very centrepiece of the meeting.
There are clear links between us in the Commonwealth. There are economic, trade and investment links, and there are the links that come from our shared historical experience. There are also educational and cultural links, as well as the link through the frequent use of the English language. If we could add to those links another common bond—that all of us subscribe to democracy in politics and to human rights—it would be an added reinforcement to all that the Commonwealth stands for and would help to link it together.

Sir Colin Shepherd: Many thanks, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in the debate. I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), for selecting this topic for examination by his Committee. I congratulate him and all the members of his Committee on the success of the work that they have done on behalf, I believe, of the Commonwealth, not only of the United Kingdom in the Commonwealth.
My right hon. Friend's work has accompanied me on a number of voyages to different parts of the Commonwealth. It has become almost a standard work

of definition for the Commonwealth because of its careful exploration of the various networks involved in it. As such, it will be a valuable work of reference for a number of years not just because it may point not only to how the United Kingdom sees the Commonwealth but how the Commonwealth sees itself. It is particularly valuable for that.
I shall restrain myself to two specific dimensions of the report. The first is the strength of affinity that I find when I visit the Commonwealth on parliamentary business. That strength of affinity makes me embarrassed or sometimes more than embarrassed at the lack of awareness of the Commonwealth in Britain. The report will be helpful in heightening that awareness.
The report refers to the need to sustain the Commonwealth Institute because for 100 and some years it has been the mechanism by which we have sought to increase awareness of the Commonwealth and its predecessors within our own country. The House will be aware of the traumas that the Commonwealth Institute has gone through in the past four years or thereabouts.
I welcome the commitment to the Commonwealth Institute in the Government's response, but I should like to see a stronger commitment. I should like the Government fairly and firmly to affirm their belief in the need to press our public to gain a better understanding of this unique organisation, which is so much part of the fabric of our life and of what we take for granted.
It is interesting to note that the undercurrents are there. We have recently said farewell to the Canadian high commissioner Royce Frith, who has returned to Canada. He had a unique success in Britain in arranging, possibly accidentally, for every fishing vessel to be bathed in the Canadian flag and still not upsetting his host Government. Underlying that was the unspoken reflection among our public that the Commonwealth was important to us, even though we take it for granted and do not really understand how it affects us.
I want to see the Commonwealth Institute enabled to do its work. I have to point out to the House at this time that I have a slight vested interest in that I am a governor of the institute. I see a former governor sitting across the House and I am certain that he shares my views. Let us do all that we can to increase awareness among our people, using whatever mechanism is possible and bearing in mind the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford when he introduced the report that because we do not fight one another we do not get much press coverage. There is an immense amount to be done in that respect.
The second aspect about which I wish to speak, is the reference which pops up throughout the report to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. With a United Kingdom hat on, I welcome the reaffirmation of Her Majesty's Government's continued support for the work of the association. It is important, without a doubt. Wearing the international chairman's hat that I am currently privileged to wear, I wish to say how important it is to all 134 branches of the CPA that Her Majesty's Government so strongly affirm the work of our association.
I was delighted that the Committee not only took evidence but explored it and reported so positively on the work of the CPA. As has been said, we were singled out in the Harare declaration as having the task of spreading the


message of parliamentary democracy. Especially in the years since 1981—though before then as well—we have set out to discharge those obligations. We have enormously expanded the work that has been directed to that. We have increased the number of seminars that we run.
We responded in advance to the report's admonition to do more to encourage countries seeking to establish parliamentary democracy. I must mention the two missions that we sent to South Africa before 1994. The first, under my predecessor, in 1991 was helpful in creating awareness of the support that was available. It was reinforced by the mission that I led in November 1993 when the transitional constitution was being set up. It was useful in providing the reassurance that there was a great network of assistance waiting in the wings to help in any way possible. Immediately after the 1994 elections, the Commonwealth was delighted to receive South Africa back into membership.
We have run into difficulties in that the more that we have achieved, the more we have been asked to do. We are almost inundated with requests to do what we say that we can do. However, we are a small and lean organisation, not a rich one. We are led by our able secretary general, Arthur Donohue, the former Speaker of the provincial assembly of Nova Scotia. He has a team of 12 people over the road at Millbank. They work hard and effectively but they are increasingly stretched and the question of financial resources arises.
We are exploring ways to increase our gearing. We are halfway through a programme of parliamentary workshops for southern African parliamentarians. That is a new development that we have been exploring. It is a combined exercise between the CPA and the Overseas Development Administration, operating through its British development division in southern Africa. We have put together a programme of five workshops aimed at bringing into the net the new parliamentarians of South Africa and its provinces and putting them alongside the parliamentarians of the front-line countries. We are three down with two to play. Co-operation is working well with the BDDSA.
We have been working with the Commonwealth secretariat to develop programmes for training officials. That is another important dimension of the southern Africa exercise. While we as parliamentarians have been bending our minds to the development of the parliamentary skills of southern Africans, it is vital to provide the back-up of parliamentary clerk or secretaryship. It has been lacking for the want of means to build it up. The House has a distinct part to play in that, both through the CPA and through the House of Commons Overseas Office. We need to find more ways to act in cahoots with other governmental agencies to expand our work. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister would heed that. We need ministerial intervention to smooth the path and open doors to enable us to develop our activities.
I thank the Commonwealth parliamentarians who have participated in the parliamentary workshops. I have called in resource people from Malaysia, Mauritius, Singapore, the Bahamas, Grenada, Australia, Zimbabwe, Botswana and Kenya. They have all dropped what they were doing and given me a week of their time in southern Africa to progress the work. I will call on a lot more people before I am finished. As the Commonwealth expands, as I believe it will continue to do because of its activities, it

becomes increasingly important to sustain that network, which is dependent on the ability to communicate with one another.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) that the English language is vital. I recently visited Namibia and was delighted to find how much the English language has developed there. That means that it feels very much part of the Commonwealth. Mozambique is still weak in the English language and must be given all possible help to make its membership meaningful and relevant beyond the few. We must make certain that Cameroon is supported so that it, too, can become part of the family and can communicate without interpreters. Participation and direct conversation are important.
We must all lend a hand to new countries as they are embraced by the Commonwealth. I liken that process to the laying on of hands when a bishop is enthroned. We should all come together when new members join to give them our common strength so that they realise the strength and power of the organisation that they have joined and prosper from it accordingly.

Sir David Steel: It is a pleasure to follow the chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the hon. Member for Hereford (Sir C. Shepherd). I pay tribute to the work that he and his organisation do, which is of immense value around the world. I apologise to the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) who opened the debate. The debate came on early and I was trapped elsewhere on the premises, so I missed his speech. I congratulate him on the tone and constructive content of the Select Committee report. My party has no member on the Committee and so can claim no part in its authorship, but it is worth while.
I agree that the Commonwealth should not define its role too narrowly. It should be willing to be a little more adventurous in dealing with some of the trouble spots among its members. When Her Majesty the Queen opened the Auckland conference last year, she neatly summed up our feelings when she said that she wanted the Commonwealth to be
a significant force for good in a troubled word
When we consider some of the problems in the Commonwealth—such as in Kashmir and Sri Lanka and the disputed elections in Zanzibar—we see that there is plenty of scope for that force for good to use its influence.
Like others, I should like to refer to a number of developments in the Commonwealth. I agree with what the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said about the situation in Nigeria, which has been a difficult test for the Commonwealth. Senior world statesmen like Pierre Trudeau, Malcolm Fraser, Helmut Schmidt and Sir Shridath Ramphal have all been taking a much harder line than the present member Governments of the Commonwealth. My Liberal colleagues in Canada are anxious to introduce a trade embargo now, without waiting for further developments. Those factors remind us that the secretariat is, by definition, limited in its scope. The Commonwealth is not an association of Parliaments or nations; it is an association of Governments—that limits its role and function. We therefore have to be sympathetic to the secretariat all the time as it has to deal with its own members.
I echo the sentiments of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney and hope that the unit which is monitoring the progress, or lack of it, in Nigeria's return to true democracy, will be fierce in its activities. The trouble with unilateral trade sanctions, as have been taken by my friends in Canada, is that unless collective action is taken, one nation's trade embargo becomes another's business opportunity—that is a sad fact of life. I fear that the Government in Nigeria will simply laugh all the way to the next execution unless the Commonwealth takes concerted action in future to return Nigeria to the straight and narrow.
There are perhaps less obvious derogations from the demands for good governance in recent activities in other countries. In Zambia, the constitution has been amended in an artificial manner to rule out the possibility of ex-President Kenneth Kaunda standing again in the elections. That sort of constitutional manipulation should be condemned by all true believers in the Commonwealth principles. From discussions that I have had with political parties in Ghana, that country appears to be heading to elections conducted by an election commission that is not truly independent of the Government.
I agree with what the chairman of the CPA was saying; I think that our role in promoting democracy, which was highlighted in the report and the Government's reaction to the report, is perhaps the single most relevant issue for us to tackle. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney was one of the team in Bangladesh during the recent election. He will know that I was there just before the election as part of a team from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance—an excellent new international organisation. I only wish that Her Majesty's Government could find the pennies to join and support it instead of sitting on the sidelines. That team, which was there before the monitors arrived and before the election started, had a crucial role to play in ensuring that on two issues—I will not go into the details here—the election preparations were correct so that the monitors could survey the election process. So often in the past we have sent monitors to observe elections which are flawed before they start. In Bangladesh, that was avoided, partly thanks to the presence of the team from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
Although I am glad that Her Majesty is head of the Commonwealth, we in Britain should be careful that we do not say to other potential democracies that the Westminster model is automatically the ideal one—that is not necessarily so. It was interesting to find that in Bangladesh the people have resolved their problems by what I believe to be a unique mechanism. They created an interim Government, during whose office an election was held, presided over by the former Chief Justice. That is not something that one finds in the canons of Westminster or in any other constitution-making processes in the Commonwealth, but it is something that Bangladesh has evolved for itself and that has so far worked—touch wood.
Reference has been made to the disappearance of the Banda regime, with all its human rights atrocities, in Malawi. That was achieved through a procedure that was not particularly approved of, either here or by the Commonwealth. It was achieved through a referendum on

whether there should be multi-party democracy. We always believed that it was obvious that there should be, so we saw no reason for a referendum, but it provided the mechanism in the particular circumstances in Malawi; it was successful and got the Government off the hook. People voted in large numbers. It led to an election and to the victory of President Muluzi, whose first action was to shut the appalling prisons in which people such as Orton Chirwa had died— I commend the President for that.
We should not be too high-minded and believe that we in this Chamber have all the solutions that we can export to other countries, which can devise their own solutions to resolve their difficulties. As others have said, the key is that countries should be seen to be moving in the right direction. As today's report shows, Gambia and Sierra Leone are perhaps moving in the right direction and—as the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said—Uganda obviously is, but they have not reached the standards of multi-party democracy that we would wish to see.
As we are talking about countries moving in the right direction, I should like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that one of the Commonwealth countries with which we have the closest connections, Kenya, appears to be moving in the wrong direction. I visited Kenya with the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) a few months ago—indeed, I am a regular visitor to the country of my former residence. It is worrying that, after the elections in 1992, instead of progressing towards the development of multi-party democracy, Kenya has regressed.
I agree with those who have said that we should be looking towards a series of standards by which we can judge whether countries are moving forwards or backwards. If we were to do so, there should be five criteria on which to judge whether or not a country is an acceptable democracy.
The first criterion is whether the electoral commission is independent. It is self-evident that if the electoral commission is simply a body appointed by a Government and, as in Kenya, draws up constituencies to suit the convenience of the Government party, the election is flawed before it starts. The second principle involves the freedom of political parties and the rights of assembly. It is intolerable that, in Kenya, even Members of Parliament are required to have a licence before they can hold a public meeting. The third obvious standard for democracy is that the judiciary should be independent, which is not the case in Kenya. If the judiciary can be lent on, or can be appointed or dismissed at the Government's will, the last resort of appeal, which is essential in electoral matters, does not exist.
The fourth, perhaps obvious, principle is the transparency and accountability of Government, without which corruption can thrive and, as in the case of Kenya's most recent election, public funds can be used to help fund the election campaign of the ruling party. Accountability and transparency are essential. The fifth criterion is the freedom of the press and freedom of access, particularly to the broadcasting media.
If we establish criteria along those lines, which are pretty general and unspecific, we can measure whether people score five out of five, one out of five or, as in Kenya's case, nought out of five. What shall we do as the Kenyan elections approach—presumably they will be held next year? Do we say that it has a multi-party system with


a series of, admittedly, chaotic and divided opposition parties? Will Kenya go through the process of a multi-party election? Shall we send Commonwealth observers and other observers to an election which I believe is fatally flawed? I hope not: we must dig in our heels and warn well in advance that the country is not moving towards the sort of multi-party democracy that is acceptable by international standards, so it cannot expect a rubber-stamp endorsement or mechanisms to be brought into play to ensure that people are putting the right bits of paper in the right ballot boxes. I feel strongly about that subject, but I am sorry to have taken so much of the House's time on it.
The Foreign Affairs Select Committee report rightly refers to the BBC World Service as the spearhead of policy and the Committee found the official approach to the World Service, and the British Council, frankly incredible. Since the report came out, we have heard about the proposed reorganisation of the BBC. I wish to express strong anxieties about the fact that the BBC overseas radio service will come under BBC radio generally, which in turn will come under television generally. The distinctive service from Bush house will simply be enveloped in the great bureaucracy of the BBC. That will be highly dangerous because the role and influence of the World Service will be diminished.
Commonwealth countries account for more than 60 per cent. of the World Service's global audience. That is 89 million listeners. I shall give some examples of the audience size for foreign language broadcasts: for Hindi, the audience size is 20.4 million; for Urdu, 19.8 million; and for Hausa, 12.1 million. By countries, the audience penetration across the language barrier is also high: in Kenya, the audience is 38.3 per cent.; in Nigeria, 37.5 per cent.; and in Pakistan, 21.9 per cent. By any standards, the World Service is a powerful influence for good in the world and it is absurd that we allow new management arrangements in the BBC to threaten its independence and effectiveness. I hope that the Government will have something to say on the matter.
We have not had a debate on Hong Kong for some time and it is a very important Commonwealth country. Hong Kong, as distinct from its larger neighbour, believes in the rule of law, the accountability of Government and the freedom from corruption of officials that so bedevils China. I wish to make a specific criticism of the Government. Earlier this year, the Chinese Government appointed the committee that will oversee the transition. We all knew that the Chinese Government were opposed to the democratic Legislative Council, but they left off that committee any member of the Democratic party, which was clearly the most successful party in the internal Hong Kong elections. Our Foreign Secretary, when asked about that, said that it was "a pity". A pity? It is an outrage that that was allowed to happen.
We will not get anywhere with the mainland Government of China if we take such a weak stance towards them. The Government of China believe that they are being strong by behaving in that way. I take the opposite view because they are a weak Government, as demonstrated by their threats of censorship of the media and their unwillingness to recognise the democratic forces that have existed in the colony. If the Chinese Government really believe in the "one country, two systems" that they have signed up to, they should not be planning—as they are—to subjugate Hong Kong to the standards that exist in mainland China.
The Government should learn the lesson of the situation in Hong Kong. Only last week or the week before, the Chinese Government warned the Americans that if they did not "cool down"—to use the Chinese Government's phrase—on the whole trade and copyright issue, the Chinese might transfer more of their trade to Europe and away from America. That is an example of how we could all be picked off one by one. Whether we are dealing with Nigeria's internal problems or with China and Hong Kong, there is no substitute for a global stance and the Commonwealth has an important part to play in that.

Sir Jim Lester: It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate because we are discussing something that we all care about, as has been shown by every speech so far. I remind my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) that, in preparing its report, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee was careful to avoid a conflict between our membership of the European Union and the value of the Commonwealth. Of course, it was a pleasure to work with my right hon. Friend, who adds so much to the wisdom of the Committee.
I have been a member of the Select Committee for a long time and the report before us today is one of the most satisfying with which I have been involved. We tend to consider current problems—for example, the Bosnian situation—but we also take a long view and look to the future, which leads to our most fascinating and valuable work. I hope that this report will be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Sir C. Shepherd) suggested, a seminal report that will give all the member countries of the Commonwealth a chance to rethink their positions in it and how best we can develop it in the next century.
We noticed on our travels that some countries have not thought about the future of the Commonwealth. They accept its existence, like a comfortable old slipper, but they have not thought what will happen if the situation changes. The fact that we provoked consideration of the Commonwealth's future was valuable in every country that we visited. Perhaps the most lukewarm response that I heard came from ex-Prime Minister Seaga of Jamaica, who analytically and coolly said that we could not invent the Commonwealth today, but that he was convinced from his experience as Prime Minister of Jamaica that we are better off with it than without it. That was the coolest expression of support for the Commonwealth; the rest were much more enthusiastic.
One of the report's major suggestions is that, in our changing world, it would be valuable for trade Ministers to meet regularly. We recognise that most Commonwealth countries are in different trading regions and that we have the World Trade Organisation, but we felt that it would be advantageous for trade Ministers to meet, in the spirit of the Commonwealth, to discuss various problems and how to develop an intelligent global trading system. The Government's response to our report stated that the last meeting was in 1960, which was a long time before most of the trade organisations started. Perhaps we should organise an ad-hoc meeting of trade Ministers in Edinburgh in 1997 as a preliminary to a more permanent arrangement.
The finance Ministers' meeting has been incredibly valuable. The new finance Minister in South Africa told me that I would not believe how reassuring he found it to


attend the meeting and receive immediate warmth and help from his colleagues. That gave him the confidence to take on his difficult role. The meeting of finance Ministers has been used to deal with the problem of debt relief, which is close to many of the hearts of hon. Members present in the Chamber. Debt relief will be one of the big issues to be considered at the Group of Seven meeting in Lyon this week, and we have constantly pressed for action on debt relief because of our experience in the Commonwealth. We raised the issue at least twice at the Commonwealth finance Ministers' meeting.
As parliamentarians, we know the great value of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, but more than 200 other organisations include the word "Commonwealth" in their titles. For many reasons, including professional and technical commitment, people join across the Commonwealth and provide enormous help and assistance to each another. For example, there is a Commonwealth Dental Association, and the assistant to the Prime Minister of Jamaica was pleased to tell me that she is a member of the Commonwealth Planning Association. I suspect that most of us do not know about even a fraction of the organisations that exist and carry the Commonwealth forward. We should pay tribute to the people who, through thick and thin, retain a commitment to, and an interest in, the Commonwealth. I hope that they have been encouraged by the Committee's report.
However, not everything is fine in the Commonwealth. I refer to concerns in relation to education. Many of the leaders of Commonwealth countries have been educated in the United Kingdom, and they value that education. The President of India told me that there are two sorts of people in the world: those who have been educated at Cambridge and those who have not. Obviously, he was educated at Cambridge; I am one of the ones who was not.
Many Commonwealth leaders regret the fact that, partly because of the cost and partly because of the changing system, their children and grandchildren do not have that opportunity. Many people come to the United Kingdom for their education, providing us with one of our main sources of earnings. I believe that we must carefully consider the availability of education in Britain for the future leaders of Commonwealth countries, particularly for those of the poorer countries.
Cultural colonisation is affecting the Commonwealth. The United States of America produces a tremendous number of television programmes and sells them cheaply throughout the world—its programmes are broadcast 24 hours a day. I have witnessed the effect that this has had on my children and on my grandchildren. It is not all harmful, but it orientates them in a different direction.
People in the Caribbean have a diet of American television. Youngsters on the islands now play basketball and baseball instead of cricket. When I first visited the Caribbean, people played cricket on every corner with an old cabbage and a stick, and we have seen the results when they have played us in test matches.
Younger people in the Commonwealth do not have an appreciation of it and do not understand it. We cannot blame them for that; they see very little about the Commonwealth. For example, the Commonwealth games—the friendly games—cannot be shown in the Caribbean because it is not broadcast by American

television and it is of no general interest to the American television audience. We have to be wary of this cultural colonisation; we must ensure a balance.
The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) read out figures that show that 38.3 per cent. of Kenyans listen to the BBC World Service, which is a good counter to any control that the Kenyan Government might have on their domestic publications. Unfortunately, we do not assess the value of what we spend, in terms of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or of these important institutions. We must support organisations that maintain our cultural link.
During the course of the Committee's careful research, we visited Africa—we visited all the regions of the Commonwealth. People in Africa have many ideas about the future of the Commonwealth. They are in the process of changing their economies and they trust any official or person who is sent to them by the Commonwealth to give them honest and cogent advice. They are, however, a little more wary of other multilateral organisations, which although they may have marvellous curriculum vitaes perhaps do not understand them quite so well and therefore do not know how to begin to help with such changes.
The former Members of Parliament, clerks and others in Uganda feel deprived because their country is not currently a member of the CPA. We rightly did not let Uganda join because it did not fulfil the conditions. In Uganda, we had an open debate about the future of the Commonwealth, about Uganda's desire to rejoin the Commonwealth and about the support on which it relies from the Commonwealth.
A number of hon. Members have referred to South Africa. One of the most moving things that we saw in Soweto was a Commonwealth police team—not just a British team—training new recruits to the community police. The team comprised a female police inspector from India, people from Zimbabwe and British police men. They were working together to help to change the military police—with military ranks—to community police. The population realised that straight away. When they were brought into a police station, they would say, "Can that lady over there in the light blue uniform deal with me, rather than the people in the other uniform? I know that she is one of the new community police".
In one sense, South Africa has been the source of the problems of the Commonwealth. During the height of the difficulties, I remember us debating the issue and saying that the Commonwealth represented so much more than just the problems of South Africa—that there were so many links to the Commonwealth. Happily, we have got over that issue. South Africa has reaped a harvest of assistance from other Commonwealth countries in facing up to its problems. One recognises the value of the Commonwealth, and its value to its members.
I believe that the Government's response to the Committee's report, which I have not had time to analyse in detail, is not the last word but the first step in the continuing dialogue between the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, the House and the Government to ensure that we recognise the value of the Commonwealth and that we give it the resources that it needs to do the job adequately. I hope that once we have had a chance to read the carefully crafted words of the Government we will be able to have another debate.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who led the Committee so well, that this is a valuable report. I suspect that it will be talked about and used for a long time to come.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee is very good. I am not a member of the Committee. I have been struck by the vigour of the ideas and by the thoughtful work of the Committee, on which I congratulate its members. The report will refocus the attitude of Parliament, and a lot of other Parliaments, on the real role of the Commonwealth. I shall not reiterate the important points that hon. Members have already made because we all agree with them.
I shall, however, highlight some of the matters that I think are essential. On several occasions, I have been chosen by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to monitor election procedures, such as in Malawi, or to take part in seminars on parliamentary procedure, such as in Kenya. Hon. Members do not realise the tremendous work that the CPA does at every level—week in week out, day in day out. With astonishingly little money, it produces fantastically good results.
For example, in Malawi I saw how an enormous sum provided by the United Nations was not producing the same efficiency or response as the work of the multinational CPA team, which comprised parliamentarians able to deal with the day-to-day problems of the elections and to respond to the real needs of local people, who had not had an election for many years. Local people desperately needed to know that they were doing the right things. The Commonwealth Secretariat proved what could be done by people who know what they are doing and who are determined to provide constructive assistance. If we handed the monitoring of elections in Commonwealth countries to the Commonwealth Secretariat and gave it a proper budget and the right back-up in terms of people and facilities we could solve many of the problems in states that desperately want to return to a democratic system of government. The Foreign Office should take that issue on board, as it is not addressing it at present.
Hon. Members who have spoken have been so polite that I hesitate to be my normal self, but I believe that the Foreign Office is frightfully mealy mouthed about the Commonwealth. It says, "Yes, we think it is a good idea", but it is so preoccupied with supinely following the European institutions that it does not put enough money or energy into supporting the Commonwealth. I am particularly concerned about the movement of British diplomats from sub-Saharan Africa. Those officers perform an enormously important function and provide specialist knowledge and support. Britain should not take two or three steps back simply because of the emergence of the new South Africa and because of the changing roles in the region and say, "Someone else can fulfil our role". That approach is not only wrong but wrong headed.
For example, when I returned from a visit to Lesotho I sought a meeting with Baroness Chalker. I was concerned that the movement of Foreign Office officials around sub-Saharan Africa was apparently producing different emphases within the existing approach. I was worried too about the growth—the excrescence—in the number of
large European Community embassies in African countries, which appears to cut across the Commonwealth's role. One does not want to be paranoid, but one begins to wonder what is going on when one is confronted with large buildings staffed with European officials who operate on budgets that are three or four times larger than the budget of the British in those areas and who appear to be doing their own thing without consultation.
Baroness Chalker accepted that my concerns were perfectly legitimate and she undertook to consult about whether there was proper co-operation between the European Community and the British and the staff on the ground. She responded to my concerns in a letter to which I referred when I rather rudely interrupted my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). She said, in effect, "Don't worry about it. Everything is all right. They are all frightfully polite to us in the EC. Anyway, when we move people from our commission offices we send someone to the EC establishments to act as an adviser and that makes it all right". That is a load of nonsense.
The Commonwealth promotes relationships among equals. That is what pleases me enormously about the Commonwealth: we no longer talk in a passé manner about how we can hand on our best British traditions. The Commonwealth is creating its own traditions within the framework of a democratic system that originated here and which we had the privilege and the ability to develop in fits and starts over many hundreds of years. The Commonwealth is using that framework to create democratic systems that contribute to development and stability in countries not only in Africa but throughout the world. That is very precious: we should be proud of our place in the scheme of things.
The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is not the only organisation that performs noble work. It does a fantastic job and I pay tribute to the tiny number of staff who work flat out and perform important tasks every day of the week. I pay tribute to other organisations within the Westminster system that we do not always think about. The Clerks have their own association and they constantly exchange information and develop relationships that are important to emerging Parliaments, which seek contact not only with elected representatives but with those who can provide independent advice. The Speaker and her deputies play an important role in exchanging information with other Speakers and presiding officers from Commonwealth Parliaments. The exchange of support and experience is essential.
I hope that those functions will be valued more in the future. It is not simply a matter of coming to the Chamber and saying, "Oh yes, we think it is a very good idea". We must put some money, effort and, above all, some muscle into it. We should say, "We have a chance for a new start—let's get on and do something positive for a change". The report highlights some positive ways forward and, in that sense, it is very encouraging.
Against that, one must set the Government's attitude to the BBC World Service and the British Council. The Government seem to regard the British Council simply as an organisation that makes money out of teaching English. The teaching of English is a tremendously important task, but it serves the equally important function of giving people access to books and papers and to a different culture. It seems strange to talk about our daily


newspapers in the context of British culture, but we do have brilliant writers and artists and we should make our culture accessible.
I have seen medical students and doctors in Commonwealth countries rushing to read the British Medical Journal and The Lancet with an energy and a commitment that is not always evident among British doctors. We have much to contribute at every level and in every profession and we should value that role.
I am deeply concerned about what is happening to the BBC World Service—it would be quite wrong not to raise that issue. The World Service does not simply broadcast news and current affairs around the world, although it performs that role very well, but holds competitions for playwrights, such as the one run by the African service that produced some remarkable writing from new African playwrights. We should build on those achievements and not allow them to die. The BBC World Service produces many special and individual programmes that will be lost to listeners if decisions about its future are made by the large British domestic administration.
I am second to none in my admiration for the BBC, but the domestic BBC plays a different role from the BBC World Service. If it is left to a strange commissioning process within the BBC, we shall lose the quality programming that makes the World Service unique. It is no accident that many people in Britain prefer to listen to the BBC World Service—although it is not targeted at that audience—because of the quality and the breadth of its programmes. The BBC World Service realises that there is a world beyond the tabloids, and its journalists and reporters are prepared to write and to broadcast programmes that are so fundamental that I am horrified at any suggestion that the reorganisation will change the way in which the service operates. That could only damage the service. I hope that an incoming Government will change that state of affairs quickly by applying considerable pressure to the governors and the administration of the BBC.
In one of her more enlightened moods, Madam Speaker asked me to take over her responsibility for a little organisation called the Commonwealth Countries League. It is a tiny charity that uses all its money to support, throughout the Commonwealth, girls who need help to go to secondary school or even university. Some of the stories about the children involved are very moving.
There was, for instance, a case of identical twins whose parents could not afford to send both of them to school, so they were having to take turns—one week on, one week off—going to school. We were asked for a tiny sum to give them the chance of an education. The league consists of a small group of dedicated women who, entirely by their own efforts and by running a huge fair once a year, support many girls in this way throughout the Commonwealth. Of course it is just a tiny drop in the ocean of education problems facing sub-Saharan Africa— I do not want to mislead the House about that—but the vital work goes on because of the commitment of these women. They come in every colour, shape and hip measurement, and they are of varying educational backgrounds; but they come together to do their best to raise cash for girls throughout the Commonwealth—a practical demonstration of what the Commonwealth is all about.
The Commonwealth is an equal partnership of people who do not necessarily share a religious or domestic background or even the same political ideas. Still, they believe that this strange gossamer-like organisation, which has grown out of an imperial past into a strong and worthy body, needs our support, now and for the future. They look to every elected Member of this House to understand the importance of the organisation and to commit themselves to it from now on.

Mr. Mark Robinson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and his colleagues on the Select Committee on producing the most positive report on the Commonwealth to have emanated from Government and parliamentary sources in a very long time.
I must declare an interest of a sort: I worked for the Commonwealth Secretariat for six years and had the privilege of serving as a member of the board of the Commonwealth Development Corporation for four. I have experienced the contrast between the Commonwealth and the United Nations, whose secretariat I have also worked for. There is a great difference between the large bureaucracy of the United Nations and the tiny secretariat that supports the Commonwealth. Ministers go to the United Nations and talk at the assembled company; they deliver their speeches, attend a dinner and then go away. But when Ministers go to Commonwealth meetings and Members of Parliament come to CPA meetings, they talk to each other. I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester), who talked about the importance of ad hoc meetings. I know of one clear example of their importance.
I was privileged to service the Foreign Ministers' ad hoc committee that considered Belize. It met in New York while the UN General Assembly was in session and it played a key role in bringing Belize through the process of independence, against the background of a hostile neighbour state which was threatening Belize but which was eventually prevailed on to allow its independence to take place. Peer pressure from within the region was the cause.
A great deal can be achieved in small, informal meetings. I have sat in on three Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings, with the task of helping to formulate the resulting communiqués. I noticed that new Heads of Government often arrive with cynical views of the Commonwealth. I think in particular of one Head of Government who went on to be a distinguished chairman of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Malaysia—a complete convert to the Commonwealth family.
The reason for this is simple: it is that, at these meetings, Heads of Government talk to each other. The meetings are held in private rooms where politicians' utterances are not being recorded for the press or the outside world, so they can speak freely.
When historians come to look at the Commonwealth, as they so often do, it will be seen that an outstanding example of its role and work was the transition to an independent Zimbabwe. There may be differences of opinion about what happened, but it is certain that without the Lusaka agreement—between the Heads of Government who were meeting in Lusaka—there would


have been no Lancaster House conference. It was because Baroness Thatcher, President Kaunda and the leaders of the Commonwealth were able to sit down together to achieve progress that agreement was reached.
What is more, the process snowballed. Namibia's independence, although a UN exercise, was another link in the process and the Commonwealth played an important role in it. The same applied to the process of South Africa's independence. I have not forgotten the surprise expressed by the current Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, at his reception by President de Klerk on his first visit. He had been warned that the Commonwealth was not popular in South Africa and that his meeting was likely to be short and terse. It proved not to be. They talked for a long time and held a second meeting which helped to break the ice and change the attitude of the then South African Government to the Commonwealth. That in turn was important to the process of transition that followed.
The British Government in their dealings with what some call the new Commonwealth have not always in the past acted as initiators, because of a view that the process of decolonisation was still under way and that it might not be a good idea for Britain to be seen as the dominating partner in the Commonwealth. Times have now changed, however, and there is plenty of scope for Britain to take the initiative in the Commonwealth family. That is one of the key messages of the Select Committee's report.
We should note how the attitude of many Commonwealth member countries to economic policy has changed. No longer do we hear the language of state socialism; no longer is the parastatal concept dominant. Instead, the private sector is now at the heart of these economies, with an important role to play. That is why the Commonwealth private investment initiative is likely to be so significant. I hope that we will offer it strong backing, just as I hope that the CDC will be allowed an expanded role in helping the emerging economies of many Commonwealth states to link up with global business.
I have visited some of the CDC's projects and seen the success of its equity participation in many of them. I have also seen the enthusiasm of the local investors. If we put our minds to it, we and the other more developed member countries can build on that success.
As has been emphasised in the debate, we have a common language. Nor should we underestimate our common systems. We have a common system of government. Bureaucracies operate in different ways but they have come from the same antecedent. A host of Commonwealth organisations, some governmental and many non-governmental, meet in a variety of expert fields which service themselves with only tiny amounts of money. That produces an enormously strong interchange of ideas.
That has great value in diplomacy. That was one of the earliest lessons that I learnt as a junior official at the United Nations. When I worked in the Secretary General's office I had to get to know ambassadors at the highest level. The quickest way to get on first name terms with a Commonwealth ambassador was the link of education. It may be obvious, but from the moment that it was established that one had gone to Middle Temple and the other to Gray's Inn, both are friends. That happened at ministerial level too, whether it was two Ministers who

had gone to the London School of Economics or shared the same university. It was a bond to be struck immediately through which business could be effectively transacted and agreement reached.
We must not neglect in our diplomacy the importance of such links in helping to break down barriers in negotiations such as those on the general agreement on tariffs and trade because we span so many regional organisations. In the Commonwealth we do not attempt to dictate, but to converse; we attempt to discover what mechanisms might lead to the removal of blockages to a successful negotiation.
Yesterday I listened to a brilliant and wonderful speech by His Royal Highness Prince Hassan El Bin Talal, the Crown Prince of Jordan. He does not represent a Commonwealth country, but he was saying things that were pertinent and relevant to what we have been talking about this afternoon. He spoke about the cultural and religious differences in the world which come out of great historic tradition. The only chance that we have of defeating the extremists is by understanding each other. In those great religious and cultural traditions, there is a strong centre of moderation and common sense. I mention that because the Commonwealth crosses religious divides, just as it crosses cultural divides, which is enormously important to its members' ability to understand one another.
Britain needs to make better use of this wonderful asset that it has at its disposal. We have that opportunity when it comes to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh in 1999. We have heard how small is the budget of the Commonwealth Secretariat, as is the budget of the Commonwealth. But within the Commonwealth family, small amounts of money go a long way, provided that they support sensible and constructive initiatives that are free from the burgeoning bureaucracy that we see so often in the large family of UN specialised agencies.
The finance initiative to which I have referred is just one example of what could be achieved, but there have been many initiatives in health, education, trade and industry. We need to pick up those opportunities and develop them at Edinburgh. I am sure that we shall be able to do so in a constructive manner. In doing so, we shall win and continue to win the good will of our Commonwealth partners, who are so important to the success of our diplomacy across the globe.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: The Select Committee's inquiry changed my perception of the Commonwealth, not because I do not have any Commonwealth connections—I do. For the greater part of 30 years I have had connections of one kind or another with Caribbean or African political contacts and colleagues. As the hon. Member for Hereford (Sir C. Shepherd) said, I was a governor of the Commonwealth Institute, and I underline and reiterate what he said. It would be an act of vandalism if the Commonwealth Institute closed. That would send a catastrophic signal, so I hope that common sense will prevail.
In some ways, despite all those contacts, I had become part of the defensive mentality about the Commonwealth. Speaking about the Commonwealth made one feel old, as if it was no longer relevant to the current generation of young people either within Britain or the Commonwealth.
As our Chairman expressed so forcefully with regard to economic and commercial matters, as we went around I was struck by the enormous potential of the Commonwealth network. We had not appreciated how much more political, economic, commercial, cultural and social traffic it could take.
The energies that we have consumed in trying to resolve our relationship with the EU have in some respects diverted our attention from the wider role that Britain can and should play, certainly in the Commonwealth. The C in FCO—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—has been very much a Cinderella in recent years. I hope that the Committee's report will mean that some of those in the Department will attach greater importance to our relationships with and the potential of the Commonwealth.
The most stunning and vivid part of our inquiry was our visit to the Indian sub-continent, where I had never been before, and, in particular, to Bangladesh. I had a completely false image of a country in total destitution. But I was astonished by the vibrancy and energy of the emerging early modern capitalism that is evident on the river banks in Dhaka which will lead to considerable economic and commercial development in the Indian sub-continent.
I felt that I was witnessing, in a completely different environment, the emerging capitalism of my constituency 150 years ago. We talk a lot about the development of democratic political institutions. There is another reason why it is extremely important that political and economic democratic institutions should take root in many of the emerging Commonwealth countries. Democratic political representation has been the means by which capitalism has been civilised. The past 150 years in my constituency have seen the process by which electorates grow in franchise, grow in political pressure, as expressed through political representation, and have progressively tried to civilise capitalism.
If there is to be, as everyone now preaches, a free market, and a capitalistic view of the development of Africa and Asia—I support entirely the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which plays an important role—there will also be huge inequalities. The lack of development in so many parts of Africa and Asia at the moment could be transformed into considerable economic and commercial growth, but with huge divisions in their societies as a result of the inequalities that go with such a system. The countervailing force to check that unbridled capitalism will be the development of political and democratic institutions. That is the function that political representation has played in the development of the full-blooded democratic system in this country in the past 150 years. It will have to play that role in the emerging countries of the Commonwealth if the economic growth that is promoted by free-market ideas and private investment occurs. Political institutional development will be an important factor alongside any economic development that might be created by know-how funds and the valuable role that the CDC and others will play in growing economies within the Commonwealth.
I now come to the chapter in our report that deals with the cultural diplomacy of the Commonwealth. We forget—perhaps because we have taken it for granted for

far too long—the fantastic appetite of the young generation in the third world, but particularly the Commonwealth, for education. Anyone who spends just half an hour in the British Council library will see queues of young people—and not so young people—waiting to use the facilities, the telephone calls that pour in for language lessons, and the demand to take exams. I was told by my parents, in Treorchy, in the Rhondda—I could not have been long out of the womb—to do my homework, because that was the way to get out of the pile and to progress. We can find that fantastic instinct everywhere, but particularly in the Indian sub-continent. It is through the English language and British institutions that new generations of young people seek their salvation and their emancipation.
Education is an act of emancipation. It strikes me as appalling that we are, in 1996, a rich and powerful country, yet we are cheese paring on such things as Commonwealth scholarships, the British Council's budget and the BBC World Service. Perhaps in the usual convoluted discussions of the Public Expenditure Survey Committee those cuts can be justified, but I ask the Minister to take the message to Ministers, particularly his Treasury colleagues, that the cumulative effect of those cuts is that people feel that we do not care. I understand that Ministers care—Baroness Chalker has a tremendous track record on this, so it would be wrong to make such an allegation—but the cumulative effect of individual decisions made in a PESC round, perhaps to give a tax cut here or offer some alternative there, impact on emerging countries, whose younger generation look to Britain to provide and service their educational emancipation.
The hon. Member for Somerset and Frome (Mr. Robinson) spoke about the political chemistry that occurs as a result of educational contact, because of a common language and shared values. That was certainly true in the years that I spent in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, when I dealt mainly with Commonwealth countries.
There is much cross-party support on this issue. I make a plea to the Government to think again about the cumulative impact that the various cuts and changes have on our relationships with people as well as Governments. The cuts are damaging the whole concept. I hope that, if nothing else, our report has shown us all that the Commonwealth is not some nice, sentimental, ancient concept, but that it has a future and that it can go into the 21st century, as long as the British Government, British people and British Members of Parliament support it in the practical and sensible ways that we suggest in our report.

Mr. William Cash: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and other hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who have spoken. I was sitting in my office in Millbank when I saw the debate on the monitor, and I felt very strongly that I wanted to be here to participate rather than just observing it at a distance by satellite.
One thing that is characteristic of the debate and the people who participate in it is the deep sense of commitment to something which, as the report shows, is of immense importance, not only in terms of our history but in terms of the future of the emerging world and


global markets. It binds together hon. Members in a way that other things do not. I believe very strongly that the report should be read by as many people as possible. I pay tribute to the Minister, and, indeed, to Baroness Chalker, for the tremendous work that they have done in relation to the Commonwealth. It is fair to say that the latter has dedicated the greater part of her political career to an interest in those matters.
I also pay tribute, although he is not here at the moment, to the Chairman of the Select Committee, who has produced a highly original report. Every member of the Committee deserves congratulations on having gone straight to the heart of an enormously important question about the future of so many different countries, which have cultural, political and language ties, and with an enormous commitment to those who can teach us a great deal but who at the same time frequently need our help.
I listened this morning to a report about the problems of the increasing desertification of Africa. There is a massive ecological problem there, and people are bound to starve on a massive scale unless others who are in a position to help them get together and do something about it. It is those thoughts and the broader—if I dare use the words— moral objective that lie at the heart of my interest in a reduction of debt.
As some hon. Members will be aware, there is a motion on the Order Paper in my name with more than 300 signatures, seeking the reduction of debt, which is a terrible burden, and much of it was accumulated not through any fault on the part of the countries concerned, but primarily because the change in the nature of government in some cases led to massive civil war. I am thinking in particular of Uganda, which, as many hon. Members have said, has gone through that period of transformation in a highly satisfactory direction and yet had such accumulated problems that, were it not for the President who has just been elected, it simply would not have been able to achieve what it has achieved.
When we think about the civil wars that are conducted on the Floor of the House and in other contexts, we should bear in mind the fact that President Museveni went into the bush to defeat a dictator who was in charge of a regime that committed appalling atrocities—with, I believe, 26 men and 26 rifles. He went into the Lowero triangle, and managed to turn his country around. We have always associated such political heroism with our own country, but it can be seen elsewhere.
We should pay attention to the concluding observations in chapter X of the report:
We have heard … in our inquiry, and we do not tire of repeating … that Britain's Commonwealth connections, and the integration in a global network of communications and friendships which go with them, are the envy of our trading competitors. Surprise is expressed that this country has not utilised them to greater advantage.
A number of hon. Members referred to the personal relationships, and to the bond that exists. In my final remarks, let me try to demonstrate my commitment to the enterprise. We are talking about our future, and the future of other Commonwealth countries. We are talking about a major factor in the development of the global networks—not just about trading opportunities, or whether we should insist on improvements in human rights in return for trading advantage. There is an enormous opportunity for this country to participate in a growing and vibrant network, which I believe we should continue to stimulate and encourage.
I congratulate the Select Committee on its report, and, in anticipation of my right hon. Friend the Minister's speech, urge the Government to continue their good work. I also congratulate the Commonwealth itself on the way in which it has developed over the past 20-odd years.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I join the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) in paying tribute to the Chairman and distinguished members of the Select Committee, who have produced an excellent report. I have spoken to a number of old Commonwealth hands, who have been as one in praising it and expressing the hope that it will focus public opinion on the opportunities that exist, challenging people not only in this country but throughout the Commonwealth.
The report is timely. As the New Zealand Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, observed in the most recent issue of The Parliamentarian, the Commonwealth has reached a turning point. At the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting at Auckland in November, key decisions were made on how best to implement the proposals presented to that meeting, and points were made about the criteria for membership. I believe that the ghosts of the Commonwealth past have largely been exorcised. Those of us who began our political careers in the 1950s and 1960s remember debates about decolonisation that tended to cloud our more objective view of the Commonwealth. Some of those debates, such as the one about Rhodesia, continued; then, in the 1960s, the question of European Community entry supervened. During that debate, the Commonwealth was paraded by some as an alternative to what I consider to be our natural trading region. The Select Committee and its Chairman, however, have made good points about the new challenges that are presented in the global trading and communications system, in which the old distances have become less relevant.
In the late 1970s and the 1980s, debates on the Commonwealth were soured by the situation in South Africa, making objective discussion in parliamentary and international forums much more difficult. It is instructive to observe how far we have come in terms of attitude to the Commonwealth. Ten years ago, at the beginning of August 1986, a special Commonwealth conference on South Africa was held at Marlborough house. Venomous remarks were made by Members of Parliament, British newspapers and, dare I say, senior sources in the Government. I have looked through the newspapers of the time; one Member of Parliament was quoted as saying:
the Commonwealth only costs us money; we give them aid; they kick us in the teeth and send their drop-outs to stay here.
One Member, Anthony Beaumont-Dark, called the Australian Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, a "ranting hypocrite", and there were some pretty horrendous briefings from Downing street. I was in the corridors of Marlborough house at the time.
There were editorials on the theme, "Do we really want the Commonwealth? Is the old club falling apart?" That was only 10 years ago, but we have travelled a long way since then—largely because South Africa, which constituted the obstacle or blocking mechanism, is no longer a symbol of offence. It has become a symbol of opportunity, providing a model for what the Commonwealth can do, and is doing, for its many members.
Like many hon. Members, I was fortunate enough to be in South Africa in April 1994, at the time of the election. It is, perhaps, the most blissful memory of my political life so far. I saw people queuing to vote, the black servant standing alongside the white employer, and felt joy that the votes of both were of the same value. We now look forward to welcoming President Mandela next month, in Westminster Hall: we are well aware of the significance of that. It could all have been very different had South Africa not had a leader of such towering historical significance and humanity—who was, of course, helped by the Commonwealth network. Sometimes it failed, as was the case with the Eminent Persons Group in 1986, but the Commonwealth Secretary-General, Emeka Anyaoku, played a quiet but effective role behind the scenes.
The Government who played such a destructive role in the mid-1980s now act effectively as an advocate for South Africa. In March this year, they pressed our European Union partners to agree to a scheme enabling the Commission to discuss a free trade area with South Africa. The role that we can play in our own regional grouping as advocate for the Commonwealth in respect of South Africa and the West Indian island banana trade can be replicated by other Commonwealth countries in their own regions—for instance, by Canada in the north American arrangement, and by Malaysia and the south-east Asian nations in theirs. Thus our role in respect of South Africa sets a precedent. I hope that Singapore and Malaysia can use their trading clout and commercial expertise across the regions to help a number of African Commonwealth countries.
South Africa is also involved in our United Kingdom aid programme, not only through our contribution to improving the efficiency of the public service and the police, but through our helping to integrate the armed services—the old MK and the old South African Defence Force. South Africa is now normalised and the Commonwealth can go forward without the hang-ups and the souring effect that South Africa caused in the past.
As the Foreign Affairs Committee well shows, the Commonwealth can provide for all its members an important instrument of foreign policy—networking within the family across a range of problems. That raises the question of the qualifications for membership. The issue was addressed at the CHOGM in Auckland, when Cameroon was admitted to the Commonwealth. Cameroon has had a colonial relationship with the United Kingdom, but Mozambique, which has a different language and no colonial relationship with the United Kingdom, was also admitted. Now Rwanda is knocking at the door.
How does one have a creative relationship with countries at the edge, especially when there is a danger of a turf war with the French-speaking countries? One thinks of Angola, Rwanda and, possibly, Burundi in that context. If there is a Commonwealth, there is a non-Commonwealth. What are the links that are sufficient to bring members together? I know that that question is now being looked at in detail as a result of the decisions made in Auckland.
The key point is that the Commonwealth is a dynamic organisation. We find that, rather than the Commonwealth losing members, countries can see the advantage for them

in being a member. All the Southern African Development Community countries, with the exception of Angola, are members of the Commonwealth. Mauritius, situated off the coast of Africa, is another Commonwealth member; that very successful country has joined SADC recently.
Co-operation on democracy is vital, as has properly been said. The Auckland conference was a turning point as it showed that there was a determination to build on the Harare declaration on human rights of 1991 and to strengthen the means by which the Commonwealth could signal its disapproval of human rights violations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is a doughty fighter on behalf of Commonwealth interests, made a point about the Commonwealth's monitoring of elections. We must look carefully at the respective roles of the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, whose tie I and the hon. Member for Hereford (Sir C. Shepherd) proudly wear. There is a danger that the Commonwealth Secretariat, which represents Governments, will be constrained in commenting on whether an election is proper, although it will have a key technical role in providing assistance before elections. I have seen at first hand the way in which it helped to mould and therefore to legitimise the elections held some years ago in Guyana, but there must come a point at which, rather than be part of an election process that is clearly a charade, the Commonwealth must withdraw.
A few years ago, I was about to go, on behalf of the Carter Foundation, to monitor an election in a west African country. The foundation took the key decision that it would devalue its own legitimacy in terms of election monitoring if it participated in that election. I was personally pleased that, at the last minute, the foundation said that it was cancelling the visit. I hope that the Commonwealth will be equally robust in recognising that it must preserve its credibility in such cases and that the secretariat and Governments, when saying, '"Yes, we will provide technical assistance," will realise that pronouncing on elections is best done by parliamentarians. The dividing line between the role of the secretariat and the role of parliamentarians must be clearly defined.
In its bipartisan report, the Committee comments that our Government are not sufficiently committed to the Commonwealth. Examples can be given, such as the rather limp memorandum that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office first delivered to the Committee. Other examples have been given by colleagues, such as the Commonwealth Institute and the World Service. Colleagues have pointed to the fact that the operating budget of the World Service for the years 1997–98 has, in real terms, been cut by £8 million. That is part of the cheese-paring to which my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) referred.
There are other problems. I personally am irritated by the fact that the Commonwealth has not addressed problems such as the security interests of smaller nations. When the Maldives were attacked in the mid-1980s, for example, books were written and conferences held. Such matters have now fallen entirely outside the frame. We need to look together at the way in which the Commonwealth can co-operate to protect smaller nations.
We have a new Commonwealth from which, as I said, the old ghosts have been exorcised; the old hang-ups have gone. We can now look forward with confidence.


I entirely follow what has been said in the report about the importance attached to meetings of Finance Ministers, and I hope that similar meetings of Trade Ministers can be held. I hope that the Government are already preparing for the Edinburgh CHOGM next year.
I believe that we shall have another Government by that time—a Government who not only are more committed to the human rights role of the Commonwealth, but who will look at ways in which trade relationships can be enhanced. We have a new era in the Commonwealth with new possibilities, away from some of the illusions of the past. I believe that although the Government can be criticised for the uncertain signals—indeed, contradictory signals—that they have given in the past, they should prepare for the meeting at Edinburgh next year, to ensure and enhance the potential of the Commonwealth in the new circumstances.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I admit to a sense almost of despair about some aspects of the debate. Some hon. Members seemed to argue that the reason for supporting the Commonwealth and for ending the cheese-paring, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) called it, in the organs that are so necessary in strengthening ties and links in the Commonwealth, was exclusively this nation's self-interest. They presented the Commonwealth as possibly yet another major market for this country and as an avenue for greater investment by this country in the other nation states of the Commonwealth.
I am prepared to accept the argument of economic self-interest as long as we realise that, in our concern to retain those strong economic ties, we must not turn a blind eye to the exploitation of child labour or endorse the use in certain African countries of fertilisers and pesticides that are banned here and elsewhere and have the most appalling effects on the workers who spray those substances on their fields. I am prepared to accept the economic argument as long as we do not close our eyes to the total lack of trade union rights in certain parts of the Commonwealth and the murder of trade union activists in other Commonwealth countries.
I was not happy to hear the Commonwealth presented yet again as a club. In my view, the essence of the Commonwealth and the reason why the Government should increase financing to contributing organs based in Britain, which disseminate information throughout the Commonwealth, is that it has the potential to be a perfect model of the future of the world. It can be the means by which independent nation states, regardless of colour, creed, religion and tradition, can acknowledge the simple humanity that all individuals share, through a shared history that has been by no means essentially calm. Some nations have survived terrible tragedies, and they have managed to overcome their difficulties, to forge a concept of a world in which all peoples can live together in harmony and develop their economies—but not at the expense of other nation states. That seems to me the central reason for supporting the Commonwealth and its real value in a world that is continually restructuring itself—not the exclusive one of economic self-interest for Britain, or even for the developing nation states within the Commonwealth.
I also found it interesting, if slightly depressing, to hear criticism of certain countries within the Commonwealth. There was also undoubtedly criticism from hon. Members

on both sides of the House of the British Government. On a recent visit to New Zealand. strong criticism was expressed to me of the failure of this Commonwealth country to speak out in support of another Commonwealth country against atomic testing by a nation state that is not part of the Commonwealth.
I support the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) in that we should not presuppose that we are the exclusive arbiters of what constitutes the best form of democratic government. Although we expect all member states of the Commonwealth to be committed to democratic government, how individual member states reach that goal is particularly fascinating. They have to find their own ways to democracy and freedom.
All hon. Members thoroughly support and endorse the essential requirement that all Commonwealth states be committed to human rights. I have had reason to raise in the Chamber the absolutely appalling actions of Nigeria and its abuse of human rights as they impacted quite directly and specifically on one 13-year-old boy who lives in my constituency.
I still find it incomprehensible that the Commonwealth, working in common with the rest of the world, has not found some means to impose sanctions on Nigeria. I take on board the argument that, without unity of purpose and a world agreement to impose sanctions on Nigeria, they would not work. I refer to economic sanctions, but the ability to work with other power blocs and nation states within the United Nations should be an integral part of the Commonwealth. It should be able to bring home to Nigeria the unacceptable nature of its present regime, not only because of the appalling suffering of millions of Nigerians under that illegal, cruel and intemperate regime, but because it will be harder for other Commonwealth countries that are attempting to craft their own way towards democracy to take the necessary—and sometimes risky— steps and leap into the dark if the richest and most populous country in Africa is allowed to get away with such appalling actions. I hope that the Commonwealth will not neglect that issue. It cannot be ignored, as it impacts upon the entire Commonwealth when one state so blatantly ignores calls for the most basic human rights.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have stressed the importance of education and the enormous gift that Britain was able to give in stimulating a desire for education. One such example is a constituent of mine. He is from Kenya, but has dual nationality. He came to Britain having obtained a place at university and was somewhat shocked to discover that he was not expected to pay in-country fees, but was charged tuition fees as if he and his family had no association with Britain and he was a foreigner. As he had considered himself to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, he found that not only shocking, but extremely disappointing.
I hope that the Government will take that on board and accept that, although it is a long time since Commonwealth countries regarded themselves as colonial countries, Britain still treasures education, human rights and a democratic system of government, and is prepared to commit itself to defending those principles and ensuring that all peoples throughout the world should eventually benefit from them. When Commonwealth citizens discover that Britain does not keep true to those ideals, they feel disappointed and almost betrayed.
Mention has been made of the importance of the World Service, and I cannot underline that too strongly. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) gave the House some incredible figures. Millions, if not billions, of people around the world listen to the World Service. It must be the cheapest Internet that the world has ever known.
Individuals in emerging countries do not always have access to electricity, to tap into the vast network that we are told information technology is making available to the whole world. It is not available to all the world, but radio is available to individuals or to a group of people listening to one tiny transistor radio. It would be a disaster if the extraordinary service that the World Service has provided over so many years were subsumed into a rationale or reconsideration of what broadcasting is about, with radio not being as important as television and the Commonwealth not being able to hold a candle to Europe and America. The loss of the World Service would be grievous.
It would be wrong, too, to believe that the British Council is essential only to teach the English language. It has taught for many years, and its teaching is valued in ways that are impossible not only to define but certainly to put a value on. The British Council provides a two-way street. Often, it stimulates in Commonwealth and other countries what is then creatively returned to us.
I am grateful for this opportunity to enter the debate. I value the concept of the Commonwealth. I believe that the majority of hon. Members value the concept too, and anything which we can do and which the Government can be urged to do to underline that value to the people of this country and, indeed, the rest of the world, is to be treasured.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: My congratulations go to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), as they do to other members of the Committee. All reports that are debated in Parliament receive the usual platitudes, but this report is important and of very high quality.
In recent years, the Government have undervalued the role and importance of the Commonwealth. My party has a long association with the Commonwealth. At the end of the war, a Labour Government brought the Commonwealth into being, and under Harold Wilson's Government, the Commonwealth secretariat was established. It is true, however, that, even in the Labour party, such ties have faded over recent years.
There is a profound case to be made about self-interest and a genuine enlightened view of the world—as well as, perhaps, about the interface between the two and Britain's global role. Even if the Commonwealth did not exist, we could not invent it. Since it does exist and we do not need to invent it, we should take maximum opportunity of the benefits and advantages that it presents. The right hon. Member for Guildford certainly made some very significant points about the economic advantages of Commonwealth membership, which, as a nation, we must examine in depth.
The Commonwealth offers a common language, which is of great significance. There is a little debate, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East

(Mr. Anderson) referred, on how far we should expand the Commonwealth if it breaches the principle of linguistic unity. Such a breach, of course, has already happened to a degree with the addition of Cameroon and Mozambique, but, in both those countries, massive efforts are being made to ensure that English is in common use.
The Commonwealth is not just about language but common attitude and common institutions that allow access to different Commonwealth markets—not just to others for Britain but, increasingly, to other Commonwealth nations for Commonwealth nations. Britain was once at the centre of the wheel, but now, because of the world internet that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) described, it is no longer. It is simply one part of the very complicated chain of communication. We should value that, and accept that a quarter of the world's population live in Commonwealth countries. Indeed, the rapid population growth in the Indian subcontinent means that that relative proportion is likely to increase. That presents a massive economic zone and means that those who are prepared to use that economic coming together for common purpose and common wealth can do so to collective advantage and not only for narrow self-interest.
There are reasons for membership above and beyond those of narrow self-interest which, from a British perspective, we must pursue. Labour in Government will ensure, for example, that we begin to establish a role for the Commonwealth section in the Foreign Office in informing attitude and policy across the range of policy formation. We must ensure that we do not ignore the importance of the connection.
Rather like my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East I think that it is important to establish that the choice for Britain is not an artificial one of either Europe or the Commonwealth. That is unreal—it always was. With more complicated trade and patterns of exchange, it will become increasingly necessary for us to maximise advantages for ourselves and the world by operating across a range of different economic areas. The advantage of the Commonwealth connection is that it links us to almost every major economic bloc on the planet. It is of clear and direct interest to Britain to do relatively well in accessing the markets provided by the Commonwealth.
Labour in government would certainly want to pick up on the point that the Select Committee made about the need for greater concentration on how the Commonwealth comes together economically. We would use the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh in 1997 to establish a Commonwealth economic development plan. We ought to begin to consider fair but free trade in the Commonwealth. We also ought to consider sustainable development and investment in the Commonwealth. We need to recognise, however, that Britain has a responsibility to our Commonwealth partners. Quite soon, the question will loom large about the succession to the Lomé 4 procedures. It is not simply in Britain's direct interest but an obligation to our Commonwealth partners to ensure that they have acceptable and fair access to the important European market, especially those in the Caribbean.
One of the Select Committee report's suggestions concerns the role of meetings between trade ministers. Certainly, Labour in Government would want to ensure annual meetings of Commonwealth trade Ministers. It is


important to begin to establish such connections. The Select Committee's recommendation is therefore very important.
It is also worth picking up the Select Committee's comments on aid. I hope that the Minister will take them on board. There is increasing concern that the way in which the fundamental expenditure review seems to be easing the Caribbean out of the aid equation and the Commonwealth into a lesser role in that equation will do no good, not only to Britain but to others in the Commonwealth who still depend on some kind of support.
That point was made to me yesterday by the Prime Minister of one of the Caribbean islands when we were discussing access to European markets and the possibility that Caribbean bananas could be excluded from such markets. He made the simple point that where one can no longer grow bananas, one can grow marijuana. If we offer that choice to our Commonwealth partners, the decision will be taken not at governmental level but by those who are driven by poverty and economic opportunity. If we want to avoid that we must offer some practical and sensible assistance, whereby economic development and investment allows development in those economies so that they can continue to trade in the Commonwealth and gain access to European markets.
I want to devote the rest of my remarks to the unique role that the Commonwealth performs in human rights and what, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, we would regard as what Britain has given to the world. Our pride in the British democratic tradition makes sense only if we can say that we are putting it into practice.
The Commonwealth has made great steps. Indeed, it is one of only two global institutions—the other one, of course, being the United Nations. By definition, the United Nations must take on board all-comers. It is important that membership is not restricted. But the Commonwealth operates with a different set of principles that allow us to state that common values and attitudes must be brought to bear.
The steady development from Singapore in 1971 to Harare in 1991 of a Commonwealth perspective on what is acceptable for members has been very important. Even more important was putting some practical bones into the body, which took place at Auckland last year. At that meeting, the Commonwealth ministerial action group was set up to act in a practical way to see to what extent human rights and democracy were being put into practice within the Commonwealth.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend referred to a "steady development" since 1971, but I have a vivid memory of trying to get our Commonwealth partners to come out against Idi Amin and failing hopelessly. It has been a more recent development, and that is why it is very welcome.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. The developments were steady in terms of rhetoric, but almost non-existent in terms of action. Even now, one of the problems that bedevils the Commonwealth is that if we accept that it is necessary to have unanimity of purpose, we will always end up moving at the pace of the slowest. The Commonwealth will therefore not be effective in applying pressure to those who fundamentally breach its levels of

democracy and human rights. We must do better, otherwise the Commonwealth will fail to take the opportunities that are presented to it.
The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) referred to the situation in Kenya, a country that is moving towards an election that no one can be confident will be free and fair. One must doubt whether the Select Committee's definition of a free and fair election will be applied—namely giving an opportunity to the Kenyan public to easily get rid of one Government and replace it with another. In those terms, the elections will fail the central test of democratic acceptability. It is not acceptable for the Commonwealth monitoring group to return to Kenya—they went there four years ago—and say that the elections are free and fair. The report suggests that the Commonwealth imprimatur of free and fair elections remains a coveted accolade, and it must remain so, but it will be devalued if we accept as legitimate elections that simply are not.
The role of the Commonwealth in election monitoring is one to which hon. Members have paid tribute, and that role must continue and be intensified. But it can be carried out properly only if we are prepared to say on occasion that we will not simply accept that a particular exercise in pseudo-democracy is up to the standards that we expect.
The biggest failure that we have seen, I am afraid to say, occurred this week, when the Commonwealth ministerial action group met the Nigerian Foreign Minister in London. The record of Nigeria since the military coup in 1993 has been outrageous. It is not a matter of a marginal breach of standards. It is an absolute outrage that we have been prepared to deal with this country in such a kid-gloved manner. The president-elect is serving a life sentence for the crime of claiming to be the legitimately elected president of Nigeria. That is outrageous. Even the person who deposed him from power is now serving a life sentence, which goes to show the even-handedness of that brutal regime. A few weeks ago, the wife of the president-elect was murdered. That is a human outrage, but it is also a political crime of the highest magnitude. There is very little belief in Nigeria that that murder was not committed at the behest of the authorities.
The murder—or so-called judicial execution—of Ken Saro Wiwa and his fellow Ogonis last year prompted the Commonwealth to take action. We ought not to have sat back this week and said, "It doesn't matter" because it does. The Nigerian Government are now insisting that when political parties form—even in a country as big as Nigeria—they must have a membership of 1 million people, and they must pass various regional tests. No political party in Britain proportionately would be able to match that test, and the result would be that we would all have to disinvent ourselves.
We also know that the civil rights of the population of Nigeria are honoured in the breach. The Commonwealth ministerial action group stated that both sides—that is the Nigerian Government and the action group—had constructive dialogue that needed to continue. That says something, or it says nothing. On the one hand, the Canadians went home in disgust and imposed their own sanctions, as they could not accept the conclusions suggested by, I am sorry to say, the British Government among others. Sir Sonny Ramphal, the former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, made clear that he was embarrassed by the Commonwealth's inaction on


this occasion, and talked about the need for more serious action and to examine oil sanctions against Nigeria— something for which my party has called for some time. We must examine the case for real sanctions against the Nigerian Government.
If the Commonwealth is to become the vision of the new world that we all want—a world where the democracy and human rights standards that we enshrine are practised around the world—it must play its role with a sense of purpose. If we cannot take tough action against Nigeria by introducing economic embargoes or by taking action against the brutal people of the military regime, the Commonwealth will fail the test it sets itself. In doing so, it will fail not people in Britain, but people of good will throughout the world and the victims of brutal regimes that we could affect if we had that sense of purpose.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I am sorry that I do not have long to comment on this important, well-informed and often passionate debate. The Government warmly welcome the report and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary stated in his observations, we share its central conclusion—that in an increasingly global political system, the Commonwealth has great present and potential value for all its members. I pay tribute to the members of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir D. Howell)—the Chairman of the Committee—and to the officers and officials of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in the United Kingdom and abroad.
I wish to emphasise two points early in my speech. In terms of the history and the size of our contribution and the importance of the Commonwealth links to the UK, it is perhaps understandable that there are those who think that Britain is in charge of the Commonwealth. That is simply not so. It is no longer the British Commonwealth, and we cannot and should not allow it to serve an exclusive British interest. There is no senior member, and we all have an equal place around the table.
As the Commonwealth covers 53 countries and more than a quarter of the world's population, and because at its Heads of Government conference every two years it pronounces on all international issues, it is a uniquely important body. There is, therefore, the danger of overestimating what it can do. But the Commonwealth is not a treaty. It is a voluntary organisation from which some members have chosen to leave and which some countries who are eligible have chosen not to join. It has no military or defence personality, nor does it now have any supranational economic authority.
We must look at the Commonwealth with a sense of realism and proportion, as that is vital. Far from leading us to a conclusion that the Commonwealth does not have a distinctive role, it should help us to identify precisely what the role is. I would like to say a word first for Britain and then for the other Commonwealth members. For Britain, there is great value in being a member of the Commonwealth. It provides a special nature in our bilateral relations with 52 other countries, and this asset is worth preserving and working hard at. Secondly,

Commonwealth links in education, law and economic policy all contribute to making the global international state system more stable and, through that stability, more prosperous.
We should not ignore the argument—as some may choose to do—that as more Commonwealth countries become more prosperous, the common language and a host of other affinities that have grown over hundreds of years can be translated into valuable investment and trade opportunities. Those trade opportunities are not just of benefit to us, but to the reciprocal countries. We must help them—as we do, for instance, through the Commonwealth Development Corporation—to increase their prosperity. To ignore our prosperity ignores prosperity and progress for them.
Britain's central and pivotal role in the Commonwealth gives us a special influence for reform through discussion with 52 other countries and, indeed, they have a special influence over us. As I said earlier, no country has to belong to the Commonwealth. No President or Prime Minister is obliged to attend the two-yearly Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in person. If the Commonwealth is to remain an asset, it must be seen to be valuable by all its members. I believe that by the vast majority it is. In practice, this means that Britain cannot expect to table proposals that accord with British interest and simply see them adopted ipso facto as Commonwealth views. That was clear from the discussions on nuclear testing in the Pacific at the last CHOGM in New Zealand and no doubt it will be the case again, but at the same time, as we have done on global trade issues in the past 10 years and ways of tackling the heavy debt burden of several Commonwealth countries, we can get our point across and have it endorsed. We can use that to advance international negotiations in a way that we favour, but only provided that we show a sensitive concern for the priorities and anxieties of fellow Commonwealth members.
As we have set out in the Government's reply to the Select Committee's report, our record since the new Commonwealth context emerged in 1990 is a creditable one. The Harare declaration, the encouragement of multi-party elections, the promotion of high human rights standards by Governments, a strong stance against military government, and an imaginative programme of Commonwealth help to countries trying to re-establish democratic accountable civilian government are all laudable. The establishment in Auckland last November of the Commonwealth ministerial action group to monitor Commonwealth member Governments' consistency and compliance with the Harare declaration has been a success, although the greater successes are yet to be seen. Britain has been at the forefront, if not the instigator, in most of those developments.
We have also used our bilateral relationships with Commonwealth countries to good effect by keeping in close touch with other countries. That is important to us when problems arise, as they must from time to time. We have improved relationships with all our peoples. We have put a huge effort in the past five years or more into our relations with India. They are now closer and more useful on virtually every front. As the Government's reply to the report describes, we are putting a major effort into revamping our links with Australia and New Zealand. The value and depth of our relations and the deep contribution that we make to each other are not always recognised today. I believe that through these programmes we will make progress and renew our links.
The Commonwealth multilateral link provides a canopy for our relations, but it is not a substitute for the hard and imaginative work required to translate those links into closer and more beneficial relations.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hanley: I will give way to the hon. Lady, but I have been left very little time.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister struggles through the canopy of cliche. Is he thinking of referring to the report?

Mr. Hanley: If the hon. Lady had not opened her mouth at that moment, I would have come immediately to the report, but there we are. I know that a little dig is common from that quarter.
I am a passionate fan of the Commonwealth. I was an elected member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association United Kingdom executive body. I will do all that I can to ensure that Commonwealth relationships increase and improve.
Recommendations 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 in the report are on trade. Trade is one element in the bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and all countries, including our Commonwealth partners. Senior officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry are directly responsible for pushing those relationships. We have teams in the United Kingdom and overseas dedicated to promoting bilateral trade with the Commonwealth. Those officials ensure that we make the best use of our Commonwealth ties, but not solely for our benefit, as I have said before. It is for the mutual benefit of all our people. That is not a cliché.
We will continue to negotiate for Commonwealth countries generous access to the European Union single market whenever we can. We push forward their views when formulating our policy in EU trade negotiations.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: There was a Commonwealth sugar agreement. It is carried on to some extent in Lomé. Will the Minister remind his colleagues in the European Union that the same principles of universal trade might well apply in some way to banana traffic?

Mr. Hanley: That is an important issue for many countries in the West Indies. I will certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments.
We most certainly have not forgotten that we are, as my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development said, one of 15 and one of 53. My right hon. and noble Friend mentioned that in her evidence to the Committee.
Recommendations 32 to 39 are on Nigeria. We have seen just this week at the meeting of the Commonwealth ministerial action group how the Commonwealth can play a very active role in promoting democracy and protecting human rights. The third meeting of the CMAG was attended by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. They expressed the

Commonwealth's displeasure at recent events in Nigeria. We hope that that will pave the way for further progress towards meeting the Harare principles.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hanley: No. I am sorry. We have set down a clear timetable and a clear time scale for action. If there is not progress by the meeting in September, further action will certainly be taken. All other matters are still being considered, both with our colleagues in the United Nations and in the European Union. The Commonwealth is not alone in this matter.
Recommendation 42 is on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. We warmly welcome the Select Committee's support for the work of the CPA and we have emphasised that in our reply. Its work produces excellent results. The high commissioners from our overseas posts have frequently mentioned to me how much both they and their host Governments welcome these exchanges. I am sure that many of the hon. Members here will also know, from personal experience, just how right they are.
Recommendation 50 is on Commonwealth membership for Cameroon. We have taken careful note of the Committee's comments on admitting Cameroon to the Commonwealth. We accepted, with our other Commonwealth partners, that significant progress had been made by Cameroon towards meeting the principles of the Harare declaration. Commonwealth membership will further advance those efforts and the great pool of experience and advice that comes from being a Commonwealth member can only be good for Cameroon's development.
Recommendations 52 to 59 deal with the role of the Commonwealth now. We agree with the conclusions of the report that
the Commonwealth is acquiring a new significance in a rapidly transforming world and that United Kingdom policy-makers should bring this major change to the forefront of their thinking.
That sums up fairly well the findings of the Committee. The days of disagreements over the problems in South Africa are now well behind us and we have now entered a new and exciting time for Commonwealth relations.
Recommendation 60 is on the FCO and the Commonwealth. I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that the FCO continues to place high importance on the Commonwealth within the workings of the office. The Select Committee's suggestion of separate objectives for the Commonwealth in the FCO's annual mission statement is well taken. The changing role of the Commonwealth needs to be reflected in the way in which we look at it. The Select Committee has helped us to see a number of new linkages and for that I am grateful.
The British Council now serves in 229 posts in 109 countries. When the Government came to office it served in 108 posts—we have more than doubled the record— and in 79 countries—we now serve in 30 more. There have been no post closures due to the efficiencies that the Treasury has required of us in this last year.
The World Service reaches more people than ever in its history at this moment—140 million. That is a record of success. It is wrong to say that the imposition of efficiency requirements has decimated the service. As for


the reorganisation of the World Service, that is a matter for the BBC. It has agreed to continue to ensure that our role and our essential requirements are maintained.
The introduction to the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs notes that the Commonwealth is in a period of rapid change and is today operating in a vastly altered international context. The Government fully agree with this. Who could not? Events in recent years, notably the resolution of the problems in South Africa mean that we have taken a fresh look.
In recognition of the changes that have taken place, we have for the first time in 20 years invited Commonwealth Heads of Government to meet in our country. The Heads of Government conference in Edinburgh in October next year is an opportunity for us to show our support for the Commonwealth as an association. The conference will, as ever, be a chance to discuss with fellow members the many issues that are important to us all. They include the role that industry can play in economic development; the role of investment, both local and overseas, in promoting economic growth; and what Commonwealth voluntary organisations can do to make the lives of the citizens of our countries, especially those suffering deprivation, more rewarding and humane.
There is much work to do and the Government are eager to take it forward. Commonwealth officials will meet in London in October to discuss the agenda and arrangements for next year's conference. I hope that the conference will enable the Commonwealth to set its agenda for the challenging years ahead. The FAC's report has been a valuable component in the Government's thinking. I am sure that we will draw heavily on its ideas well into the future. The Government thank the Committee for its excellent work and the House for this debate.

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [21 June], to put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings.

ESTIMATES, 1996–97

Class II, Vote I

Resolved,

That a sum not exceeding £343,886,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on its salaries, building and other accommodation services, and administration and those of HM Diplomatic Service, official information services, sundry services and loans and payments in connection with catering services.

Class II, Vote 2

Resolved,

That a sum not exceeding £113,862,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year

ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on grants and subscriptions etc to certain international organisations, contributions in respect of international peacekeeping forces, special payments and assistance, scholarships, military aid and sundry other grants and services.

Class II, Vote 3

Resolved,

That a sum not exceeding £90,870,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on payments to the British Broadcasting Corporation for external radio broadcasting and monitoring services and for contractual services in connection with FCO relay stations.

Class II, Vote 4

Resolved,

That a sum not exceeding £53,824,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the British Council.

Class II, Vote 5

Resolved,

That a sum not exceeding £799,755,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Overseas Development Administration under the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 on the United Kingdom overseas aid; including financial and technical assistance to governments, institutions, voluntary agencies and individuals; capital and other subscriptions and contributions, including payments under guarantee, to multilateral development banks and other international and regional bodies; emergency, refugee and other relief assistance; pensions and allowances in respect of overseas service including contributions to pension funds (including payments under the Overseas Pensions Act 1973, and grants in lieu of pensions); and on global environment assistance; loans to the Commonwealth Development Corporation under the Commonwealth Development Corporation Acts 1978–1995; expenditure on the Turkey Ankara Metro mixed credit Aid and Trade provision project; payments to Crown Agents under the authority of the Crown Agents Act 1995; costs in connection with privatising Crown Agents and the Natural Resources Institute; running costs, related capital expenditure and other administrative costs including for the Natural Resources Institute (an executive agency); and payments (under the authority of the European Communities Act 1972) to certain beneficiaries of the Gibraltar Social Insurance Fund.

Under the Resolution of the House of 18th June and the Order of the House of 21st June, these Estimates are to be considered in so far as they relate to the future role of the Commonwealth, and any Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the five Motions in the name of Mr. Michael Jack will be put not later than Seven o'clock.

The First Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1995–96, on the future role of the Commonwealth (House of Commons Paper No. 45-I), the Government's Observations thereon (Cm. 3303) and the Government's Expenditure Plans 1996–97 to 1998–99-Foreign and Commonwealth Office including Overseas Development Administration (Cm. 3203)

Gospel Oak-Barking Line

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLaughlin.]

7 pm

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss investment in the Gospel Oak to Barking line. The Minister knows about the line's problems. If he did not know, I am sure that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) has related his experiences when he visited the line last year. It lived up to its reputation. The train was cancelled and we spent 45 minutes waiting on a cold platform for the next train, which came only because the train going in the opposite direction was stopped short of its destination to come back and pick us up.
The line has enormous potential. It could be part of an outer north London orbital route. It could provide easy journeys between points that are difficult to reach by other forms of public transport. Everyone agrees that it is grossly underused because of the serious reliability problems. No one has suggested that the line is valueless; it could be a useful service. The trouble is that people have been saying that for 20 if not 25 years, but little has changed. I suspect that the service is poorer now than it was 20 or 25 years ago. I will not repeat the graphic description of the line given by hon. Member for Epping as that would be to use unparliamentary language.
The consequences of the lack of investment are felt in the service. In charter period 54, there were 210 cancellations out of 968 services. In charter period 56, there were 284 out of 1,209. In both periods, the cancellation rate was more than 20 per cent. The cancellations are caused mainly by rolling stock and infrastructure failures. I shall discuss that and the investment decisions on them.
The line has had aged rolling stock since the decision in the early 1960s not to electrify. There was a short period when some new diesel units were used but that did not work terribly well. Apart from that, it has always had cast-offs from other lines. As other lines were electrified or improved, the cast-off diesel units went to this line. The present units are more than 30 years old. In the longer term, we will need new, modern, reliable trains.
Some immediate questions need to be considered. The lease on the existing units will soon run out and their failure rates suggest that they may be beyond redemption. I understand that North London Railways is considering using class 141 diesel units, which are cast-offs from west Yorkshire. That may be a short-term answer, but I have some doubts about it. They would need major refurbishment before they could be remotely regarded as reliable. There is no commitment to provide the money for that. Many people feel that they would be unsuitable because they have a smaller capacity. Shortage of space for prams and bicycles is a problem.
Recently, under the Government's cycle challenge scheme, £79,000 was awarded to improve cycle-rail integration on the line. That involved cutting cycle channels on station stairways to allow people to get bicycles on and off trains. The trouble is that Railtrack is being obstructive about reaching agreements on their installation. It is demanding all sorts of guarantees from local authorities and asking them to take responsibility

for accidents, compensation and the maintenance of the channels. Those problems are largely the result of Railtrack having to draw up new leases with the various users of the line.
It is likely that some of that £79,000 will not be spent because of the difficulties in getting agreement between local authorities and Railtrack. It would be helpful if the Minister could examine that problem to discover whether anything can be done to resolve it. It is ludicrous that the Government have agreed to spend the money but that it is not being spent.
What are the responsibilities of the rolling stock leasing companies for such lines? Is there a formal requirement for them to supply suitable rolling stock? Are their activities in any way subject to the scrutiny of the Rail Regulator? If not, should that be considered?
There are several hundred bridges and viaducts in a surprisingly short distance on the line, which is largely built on them. The bridge across the River Lea on the edge of my constituency is so weak that two trains cannot be allowed on it at the same time. That problem is compounded by the outdated signalling. Because the signal box at Leytonstone was taken away, there are no signals between Wanstead park and the bridge. If a freight train is sent along the line, it has to be held at Wanstead park until the whole track is clear through to the Lea valley. That causes enormous disruption to passenger services, which run only once every half an hour.
Those long gaps have implications for safety. I am sure that the Minister will recall the crash at Wanstead park in 1995. A freight train had to be held there as there was nowhere else, other than the weak bridge that it had to cross further along the line, for it to be held. As a result of an error at the previous station on the line—Woodgrange park—there was a crash at Wanstead park. If there had been modern signalling or if the there had still been a signal box at Leytonstone, that crash might have been avoided.
If the Minister has travelled on the line, he will be aware of the poor condition of most of the stations: they are run down, there are no indicators and there are no staff most of the time. In 1995–96, under the transport policy and programme system, a joint local authority bid won some welcome money from the Government for station improvements on the line worth £200,000. As a result, Leytonstone station was modernised and about a third of the cost was contributed by Railtrack.
In 1996–97, when the local authorities jointly wanted to continue the work and made another bid, it was rejected. There was no money for 1996–97, although some was granted for bridge repairs under objective 2 European regional development funding. None of that money has come through this year. The local authorities have been told that there will be no more funding until a business plan for the line has been agreed.
What does the Minister expect from that business plan? Does he expect and want private sector money to be used in the business plan? If so, I am concerned. I know that the Government want to bring in private sector money and I do not object in principle to private sector money being added to public sector spending, but if there is to be a plan that demands private sector money I am doubtful about where it will come from. I can think of no major firms or developments near any of the stations that it might be possible to persuade to invest private sector


money. I believe that there have been problems on the west London line in attracting the levels of private sector finance that were anticipated.
I hope that we shall not hold up investment in the Gospel Oak to Barking line—thereby stopping money coming in through the TPPs—while we wait for a business plan that proves to be completely unrealistic in its expectations. I am told that Railtrack has some investment plans; it has been suggested that it might be prepared to spend up to £500,000 on one station and significant amounts on other stations, but all that investment seems to be on hold while we wait for the business plan. We need investment now if the line is not to deteriorate further.
Some of my comments have related to the short term and to what can we do to stop the line deteriorating further. Perhaps we need more reliable rolling stock, but if the line is to prosper in the longer term we need to do more. We should not consider it in isolation; we need to consider how it could link to other lines to form an outer north London orbital, which will require electrification and modern trains. That seems to be the only way in which we are likely to achieve a reliable service, with 15-minute intervals between trains, that will attract people to use the line. North London Railways has estimated that it could increase passenger usage by 50 per cent. if the service was reliable, and I suspect that that is an underestimate. Indeed, if we were to link the line with other services and to use more modern trains, that figure would be a gross underestimate.
There is a possibility of investment to provide new stations. In my area, a station at the Baker's Arms at the junction with Lea Bridge road, where there are shops, could be a possibility. I know that other Members with constituencies along the line could suggest other places where new stations and links could usefully be constructed.
It would be helpful if the Minister could give his view on the wider issues. What are the Government's plans for outer north London? We know that the London planning advisory committee still believes that an outer London north orbital route could be useful and that the line could be a useful part of it. It would be helpful to have some encouragement on that. We need to know what the Minister believes can be done to ensure that passengers enjoy something better than they do at present.
Could the regulator be asked to examine what is happening to ensure that Railtrack and the operating companies provide a service? They are certainly not providing a worthwhile service at present. When the Minister considers the issue he should bear in mind that the comments that I have made tonight, that I have seen in writing and that I have heard in speeches over the past year or two have all been made for 20 years or more. People who use the line are getting fed up of hearing the same promises about what might happen in the future. They stop using the line because it does not provide a reliable service and because they do not believe that the necessary investment will be made to provide services.
It is time that we started to take action; otherwise, the line will deteriorate to such an extent that nothing can be done to salvage it. All it needs is for one bridge to collapse in the wrong place and it will be impossible to run

services along the length of the line. We should not leave any rail service that could be as useful as this one in that sort of state.

Ms Margaret Hodge: rose—

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I notice that two hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Do they have the permission of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and the Minister to speak?

Mr. Gerrard: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has been informed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is essentially the hon. Member for Walthamstow's debate and contributions to it should complement it.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I should not dream of being anything other than complimentary to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), so the suggestion that I would say anything uncomplimentary about him cuts me to the quick and I am sure that it also offends him deeply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. For the sake of clarification, I should say that by complementary I meant that any further contributions should essentially add to what the hon. Member for Walthamstow has said, and should not be separate speeches.

Mr. Corbyn: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker—as in milk in coffee.
I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow and for Barking (Ms Hodge) and I have all lived somewhere near the line for a long time. In previous incarnations as members of relevant local authorities, we have all been involved in campaigning about the line. In 25 years, I have never lived more than half a mile away from the Gospel Oak to Barking line—I was closest when I lived just 10 yards away for some time. The line was not too noisy as there was not much traffic on it. In some ways I wish that it had been noisier as that would have shown that it was more frequently used.
Many of us have been involved in campaigning for the line, and, as the Minister will be aware, over the years there have been many questions and early-day motions about the line. It was a frabjous day when we persuaded the Minister for Transport in London to travel on the line. I could not join him on that day; in some ways I am glad that I did not as I have a copy of the letter that the Barking and Gospel Oak line committee sent to him in February, shortly after his visit. It stated:
As passengers stood and shivered on decrepit stations waiting for 35 year old decrepit 'Heritage' trains to finally turn up— suffering delays and cancellations just as you did when you visited the line—they might well have found it hard to believe that they were commuters in the capital of a major industrial country nearly at the end of the 20th Century.
It described the line as being run on latter-day Heath Robinson principles. I never saw a copy of the Minister's reply, but I hope that it was full and detailed and that he


remembered his freezing hours on stations on the Barking to Gospel Oak line. He has never been back. While the summer is still with us, I invite the Minister for Railways and Roads to travel with us on the line. We will hope that the train does not break down, but if it does we can show him the sights of north and east London.
In this short debate, we should pay tribute to the Barking and Gospel Oak Line Committee, which for many years, with the support of all the local authorities along the line, has worked to keep the issue before the public and to keep pressure on British Rail, Railtrack and Ministers. I also wish to pay tribute to North London Transport 2000 for the work that it has done to keep the line in the public eye, and to the borough councils, especially to Waltham Forest, which has produced an excellent submission for the Department about investment in the line.
Local people and local organisations recognise and value that beautiful line and the role that it could play in reducing road traffic in the area. Local groups do not have attitudes of deep hostility to British Rail or Railtrack: they wish to work with them and with North London Railways for a better and improved service.
A couple of years ago, the line celebrated its centenary. Historic as it is, it presents a fantastic opportunity for the 21st century if we use some imagination. Anyone who has to travel on the line will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has pointed out, travel in rolling stock that is at least 30 years old. That interests the trainspotter brigade on Sundays—when there is a Sunday service—but is not good for people who use the line to get to work, because the trains frequently break down and that affects the rest of the service.
The other problem with the line is that the connections are not well thought out. For example, I recently travelled to Sudbury, near Ipswich, to address a pensioners' meeting. I live near the Barking to Gospel Oak line, as I have explained, so I decided to take the line to Barking, board a main-line train to Manningtree and then go on to Sudbury. Had I done it that way, the journey would have taken three and a half hours each way because of the lack of connections. It was quicker to go to Liverpool Street and, tragically, it would probably have been even quicker to have driven there.
A lack of imagination in the timetable is only one of the line's problems. The limited connection at Gospel Oak with the North London line is temporarily closed because of the widening of the tunnel under Hampstead heath. With a bit of imaginative investment in the signalling system, trains could run more frequently on the Barking to Gospel Oak line; through trains could run to Watford, Willesden and round the west London link to Battersea; trains could run directly into King's Cross and Liverpool street; and a whole range of services could be available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has rightly drawn attention to the need for investment in the bridges along the line, the rolling stock and the track bed. I suggest that substantial investment in signalling could lead to a massive increase in potential usage of the line.
My constituency contains two of the line's stations. One is Crouch Hill, which is an attractive station with a country station atmosphere. The problem is that when the station is unstaffed early in the morning and late at night, people simply do not feel safe because they may have to wait an hour if a train is cancelled or if they miss the

half-hourly connection. The other station, Upper Holloway, is just below a busy main road, which is usually clogged with traffic—today was a classic example—with one person in every car while there are empty rail lines all around. That station is not well kept: it is dirty, damaged and covered in graffiti. People do not feel safe standing on the platform to wait for a train. Staffed stations might cost money initially, but it would be recouped in no time at all because passengers would feel safe using them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned the possibility of new stations. Islington borough council, with Waltham Forest and others, has consistently argued for new stations on better sites that are better managed all along the line. I feel strongly about the possibility of a new station at Tufnell Park. It would be simple to build and there is plenty of space alongside Junction road about 200 yd from Tufnell Park station on the Northern line of the underground. A connection to the underground would be very valuable, because the Barking to Gospel Oak line has few connections, apart from Blackhorse road, with the underground system.
As well as the safety of stations, we should consider the question of accessibility. Stations have no lifts or escalators and no thought has been given to wheelchair access. Access for someone with a bicycle or carrying children poses the same problems. I recognise that it would take a big programme to make all the stations accessible, but we should start somewhere by converting the stations that would be easy to convert and by ensuring that new stations are completely accessible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned the need for new trains on the line. The experience of the Barking to Gospel Oak line mirrors that of a country railway in the 1960s. The main line gets diesel trains and electrification and the small country line gets a parade of fantastic steam engines for a few years before it is scrapped. The Barking to Gospel Oak line carries the history of commuter railway trains because they are handed down, as clothes are handed down in a family. Why cannot we have new trains and an electrified line? We should use some imagination, get cars off the roads and get people and freight on to the railways.
I fear that rail privatisation will mean a general lack of investment, interest and concern in the future of the line. Some people believe that the authorities are waiting for a bridge to collapse or a major accident to happen so that they can close the line. It has been suggested that the line should become a light rail line, but I would be cautious about that. It would remove the possibility of using the line for heavy freight, as a freight bypass or as a feeder line for the main-line system.
I invite the Minister to come on a journey along the line while the weather is nice. He will enjoy it and we will show him the sights. He can then put pressure on for real investment to make the line of real value to everybody in north London.

Ms Margaret Hodge: I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on securing the debate and I hope that my contribution will complement his. I have an important constituency interest in the line and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for an opportunity to share with the House the intolerable


suffering that my constituents and other regular users of the line have to endure. I also have a personal interest because I live near the line, like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), and my children use the line, when they can, to get to school.
The plight of the Barking to Gospel Oak line was brought to my attention at the turn of the year because my postbag was full of complaints about the poor service. For that reason, on Valentine's day, I led a delegation of local people and user groups to the Department of Transport to present the Minister for Transport in London, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) with some special Valentine cards. The Valentine cards did not—despite his reputation to the contrary—express undying affection for the Minister, for his politics or for his policies. The cards asked him to ensure that passengers had a regular and reliable service. For a Valentine's wish, that was rather restrained. Alas, despite this event and despite my correspondence with the Minister, the future for the line still looks bleak.
The accolade "the misery line" has long been granted to the London-Tilbury-Southend service, which is the other line that runs through Barking—I believe that the Department of Transport has it in for Barking—but the Barking to Gospel Oak line appears to be vying for that undesirable title. For example, in 1995, one in 15 of the trains was cancelled. In December 1995, almost one in five trains was cancelled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow referred to the passenger charter period. In March to April, almost one in four trains was cancelled. I shall compare that with other lines. For example, in the four weeks ending 29 March—a slightly different period—one in 100 trains was cancelled on the Thameslink service, which is another London service.
I am not talking about the odd late train or even one or two cancellations on the Barking to Gospel Oak line; I am talking about a complete and utter breakdown of the service. It is a tragedy; a comedy of errors; a complete farce. It seems that the Barking to Gospel Oak line is being deliberately run down. Why else is the service using 36-year-old diesels? So great is the state of disrepair that the trains are actually rotting. For example, on 5 February, coach No. 51400 had to be closed—while the train was in service—because it developed a hole. Can hon. Members imagine running a train with a coach that is so rotten that it is dangerous? It was probably wise to close the coach, but what a way to run a service. That example clearly demonstrates the lack of investment in, and the downright shoddy state of, the service.
However, the service need not be like this. The line fulfils a vital function, both in its place in the local transport system and in the overall wider London transport infrastructure. In fact, some of the journeys possible on the line by other means could take significantly longer—perhaps up to an hour longer. Alternative ways of reaching certain destinations by public transport could also involve numerous changes between buses and tubes—which could put many people off making their journeys by public transport.
As has already been pointed out, the line feeds into other lines and other routes. The most imaginative scheme was put forward in 1975 by the London rail study group—

the same plan detailed the original proposals for Thameslink and cross-rail. The plan suggested linking several routes—including the Gospel Oak to Barking line and the West London line to give a through route from Clapham to Barking. However, despite the low initial set-up costs, the plan never came to fruition.
The same fate befell the proposed electrification of the line in 1955. Frankly, it is unforgivable that the line has been neglected for so long. Despite the neglect and the problems, my constituents continue to use the line—for many, it remains the only means of travel. I refer to Miss Katy Andrews—who does not own a car—who lost her job because the train service between Blackhorse Road and Upper Holloway was so unreliable that she was late for work too often.
I hope that tonight the Minister will take the opportunity to state his views on the status of the Barking to Gospel Oak line. My constituents need answers from the Government. If the Government are truly committed to public transport, they will guarantee the improvements to the service. It is not acceptable for the Government to pass the buck to the operators, North London Railways. The Government must provide direction, commitment and support. North London Railways stated in a letter that I have in my possession:
Performance on this route has indeed been extremely poor over the past two months … The rolling stock is … some 35 years old and as such requires a very great deal of attention if it is to maintain anything like an acceptable level of reliability.
The letter also confirms that North London Railways is looking to replace the stock in April 1998. That wait is unacceptable to me, to my constituents and to the users of the line. Does the Minister think that it is acceptable?
I must confess that I have learnt that there might be some replacement trains before 1998. However, perhaps I am misleading the House by calling them trains—at best, they are a stop-gap measure. Ten class 141 units— basically a Leyland bus body on a rail chassis—will be making their way on to the Barking to Gospel Oak line at some time in the near future. Far from causing jubilation among the users, my constituents and the user groups who are fighting for the line, many feel that these smaller trains are unsuitable because of the insufficient capacity for peak times. Also, these buses—not train carriages—have no space for prams or bicycles. In addition, the class 141 units appear to require major works mechanically and internally before they are properly fit for use. As I understand it, the owners—the rail stock operating company is Porterbrook Leasing—have not made a commitment to improve the trains without a contract from the train operator.
I believe that to foist these so-called trains on passengers is cruel and unfair, given the plethora of problems that they have already been forced to endure. The use of so-called trains, cobbled together from buses, is symptomatic of the Government's approach to the railways. They do not care that train services are being run down by stealth under the dogma of their privatisation plans. Bus consortiums are winning train contracts and, in the end, it is likely that buses will ferry passengers along the routes once serviced by trains.
What guidance will the Minister be issuing to North London Railways in relation to renewing the rolling stock? Or will he wash his hands of his responsibilities and let the suffering continue? If the Government were


truly committed to public transport, it would guarantee improvements to the stations and to the track. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has already referred to the £200,000 of TTP money that was allocated for improvements for 1995–96. Why has no money been allocated for the current financial year? The Minister sent me a letter in March, in which he stated:
A significant feature of the settlement was that it has to be arrived at during a period of severe restraint on public expenditure, with consequential pressure on the available funds … Given the overall funding pressures … we felt that it could not be supported in 1996–97 against competing bids.
The Minister must admit that something is wrong. The excuse that these necessary and vital improvements are ignored because the pool is insufficient demonstrates, beyond doubt, the long-term neglect of the Government in relation to investment in essential infrastructure projects. What a dreadful legacy to leave for a future Labour Government.
However, it is not only the stations and the rolling stock that are past their sell-by date and in need of urgent overhaul—rather like the Conservative Government, the tracks and the bridges are falling apart.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With the greatest respect, it is not the hon. Lady's Adjournment debate but that of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). He has already given the House the benefit of his experience, which was supplemented by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). It is not acceptable that the hon. Lady's speech should run the risk of being longer than the original speech.

Ms Hodge: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my speech should not be longer than the original Adjournment speech. I have been keeping my eye on the clock to ensure that I stay within the timeframe and I assure you that I shall do so.
If the Government are serious about their commitment to public transport, the Minister must make a commitment to the long-term future of the line. In a letter to me of 17 May, the hon. Member for Epping Forest said that the franchising director would look at aspects of the long-term replacement of rolling stock when bids were invited for the North London Railway franchise. He assumed that they would be based on an increase in freight traffic. What is the basis of his assumption that there will be an increase in freight traffic?
Tonight's debate has given my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow and other local Members of Parliament like me the opportunity to express the anger and widespread and serious concerns of those who depend on the line to go to work, to visit their families and to travel easily across that part of the capital. The Government have let the line decay, but it must not be allowed to die. If the Minister does not promise specific action in his response tonight, the people who use the Barking-Gospel Oak line will demonstrate their anger through the ballot box. That cannot happen too soon.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I thank the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) for raising on the Floor of the House the issue of investment in the Barking-Gospel Oak line. I am

also grateful for the contributions of the hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Barking (Ms Hodge). I shall accept their kind invitations to visit the line—particularly as I am now aware of its importance in conveying the hon. Lady from her home to her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) has a pressing engagement out of London, but I could not pass comment on whether there is any connection between that engagement and his recollections of his visit.
The line clearly has other supporters, such as the Gospel Oak to Barking Line Improvement Now Group— which sent the valentine cards to my hon. Friend—and London First. It is also clear that the present state of the line and the reliability of its services worry many people—a good number of whom were prompted to send about 700 valentine cards to my hon. Friend earlier this year. The cards asked for a 15-minute reliable train service every day throughout the year, with a good information system. That sounds a simple request, but the answers are more complex than the question implies.
Services on the line are provided by North London Railways. The line's infrastructure and its rolling stock are extremely old. The route is carried predominantly on viaducts and bridges—I am told that there are 467 bridges between South Tottenham and Woodgrange Park stations alone. The bridges carrying the line over the River Lea require the most urgent attention and currently a speed limit is imposed on all trains travelling over that section of track.
There are also limitations—which have been described tonight—on the line due to old signalling and the lack of intermediate signalling between South Tottenham and Woodgrange Park stations. That means that a train cannot enter that section until the preceding train has left it. The journey time over that section is 19 minutes, and the implications for train frequency are obvious.
The rolling stock comprises first generation two-car diesel multiple units that are more than 30 years old. Although the train operator has increased the number of units available to run the service in an attempt to improve reliability, cancellations occur all too frequently. Further units will become available from the West London line in the next few months, but a longer-term solution is clearly required and a number of proposals are being considered. North London Railways is discussing with rolling stock companies the possibility of using more modern refurbished units, although it is unlikely that they would be available to enter service on the line before the latter half of 1997. However, that may not be a permanent solution to the problem.
Resources have been sought through both the transport policy and programme mechanism and the European regional development fund regime. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow said, there was a successful bid in 1995–96 which contributed £200,000. It was announced when my hon. Friend visited the line on 15 December 1994. However, as the hon. Lady said, bids for TPP resources are competitive and my Department must make a judgment about which bids offer the best value for money. I am not surprised—in view of my local government background—that local authorities can propose many more good projects on which to base bids than we can afford to fund.
The London borough of Waltham Forest has also submitted bids under the ERDF regime seeking £176,500 for a bridge strengthening programme and a feasibility


study. That bid was assessed against both the overall ERDF public transport objectives and the other bids competing for resources. Although the bid was within the "acceptable" category, once again there were insufficient resources available globally to enable the bid to succeed. No further bids have been made.
The Government office for London has advised about the need for a business case or plan that will establish the line's problems and opportunities—I think that the problems are clearly understood and have been described well tonight. It is important to identify also the opportunities that will be a prerequisite for any future investment decisions. The opportunities that the line offers and its potential for connecting services to other parts of the network mentioned during the debate are a helpful start.
So much for the history of the line, but what does the future hold? I do not share Opposition Members' pessimism that privatisation has nothing to contribute—quite the contrary. I believe that privatisation of the railway offers a new future for this line and for other lines where we have successfully franchised services.
As to infrastructure, Railtrack has told us that it believes that the line offers a number of exciting opportunities for future development. Unlike British Rail before it, Railtrack is able to undertake the necessary long-term planning with confidence. Investment decisions about rail infrastructure are no longer prey to the vagaries of the annual public expenditure settlement. The financing of investment programmes has been moved from that environment into the more dynamic environment of private financial markets. Decisions can now be taken on a commercial basis to improve services. I hope that this line will benefit and, in that context, the development of a business plan for the line is important. I shall return to that point in a moment.
As for the train operators, the privatisation process through franchising will also bring benefits for railway users, not just on this line but more widely too. There is for the first time a contractually guaranteed level of train services that will guarantee the future of every line and station on the network. So I think that hon. Members will see, when the franchise is let, that the stations on the line and the continued operation of services over it will be secured contractually by the agreement into which the operator will enter with the franchising director.
The passenger service requirement, which covers areas of particular interest to passengers—the frequency of trains, the stations they serve, journey times, first and last trains and weekend services—is drawn up against the background of an unprecedented amount of consultation with the users of services, with passenger representatives, and with local authorities having an opportunity to comment on the services that they would like operators to provide.
Moreover, many franchisees have committed themselves to providing improvements beyond the specified level—for instance, their contracts with the franchising director have included commitments to provide new or enhanced services and new or refurbished rolling stock. When assessing bids for a franchise, the franchising director is instructed to take account of any offers of contractual improvements to service level or quality that go beyond the specification. Only this week there has been a successful bid for Chiltern, including new rolling stock and the

provision of security at 11 major stations. That will make passengers feel more secure, in the way that has been called for. There will be 50 secure cycle ranks at Marylebone station and 250 at other stations on the network, to facilitate rail-cycle journeys. Both on Chiltern and on LTS, new rolling stock has been provided as part of the package, and there has been a proposal for a new station at West Ham by the LTS franchisee.
The Office of Passenger Rail Franchising will shortly be developing the draft passenger service requirement for NLR. It will set out the contractual requirements for the services to be provided. It is clearly important, in following the guidance, that the PSR should be based closely on current service levels, and that the depressed level of patronage that has arisen from the reliability problems should not be taken as the base. I understand from the franchising director that the PSR will be set on the basis of an expected increase in patronage following the completion of the engineering works that currently so adversely affect the operation of this service. Consultation will then take place with the official consultees.
On 11 June, the franchising director invited applications to pre-qualify to receive an invitation to tender for this franchise. The deadline for applications is 12 July. It is expected that an ITT will be issued later this year, and that the franchise will be transferred to a private operator in the early part of 1997.
The question of investment in the line was raised early this year at a meeting of the London consultative committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London. As a result, a meeting is shortly to be held between the Government office for London, representatives of the boroughs, the ALG, London First, Railtrack and North London Railways, to discuss future funding options for the route. It is in that context that a business plan for the line becomes so necessary.
We have told the boroughs and others that both the ERDF bid and the 1996–97 TPP package bid, in highlighting the need for a feasibility study for the line, drew attention to the need to take a hard look at the economic justification for investment. Officials in the Government office will endeavour to play a full and useful part in the development of the business plan and in identifying the means by which it can be funded.
The hon. Member for Islington, North asked about the provision of facilities for cycle users. I shall make further inquiries into the matter and write to him—

Mr. Corbyn: And the disabled.

Mr. Watts: Indeed. I will also copy the letter to other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate.
I have spoken about the line's history and its current problems which reflect the low priority that has been given to this line while in the public sector. I believe that its transformation in the private sector, through the franchising process and because of the successful privatisation of Railtrack, will deliver a brighter future for the Barking to Gospel Oak line. I look forward to arranging a visit at a fairly early date, when I shall be delighted to be shown the problems facing hon. Members' constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eight o'clock.